Whine Season

Councillors Are Paid to Govern, Not Complain

The release of Hamilton’s proposed 2026 budget has triggered a familiar and increasingly unproductive ritual at City Hall: councillors expressing shock, disappointment, and indignation at cuts that are an inevitable consequence of the budget framework already declared.

Mayor Andrea Horwath has put forward a 2026 budget with a 4.25 per cent property tax increase—lower than the 5.5 per cent originally projected by staff. That reduction necessarily requires trade-offs. Yet much of the council response, as reported by The Hamilton Spectator, has focused less on proposing workable alternatives and more on lamenting process and outcomes after the fact.

This misses a fundamental point of municipal governance.

Councillors are not paid to react emotionally to difficult budgets. They are paid to do the hard work of governing within them.

Under Ontario’s strong-mayor legislation, the mayor is responsible for proposing the budget. Council’s role is clearly defined: review it, propose amendments, and build consensus where possible. That framework may be imperfect, but it is the legal reality councillors operate within. Complaining about that reality—rather than engaging it constructively—does nothing for residents who ultimately foot the bill.

Several councillors criticized the mayor for insufficient collaboration, arguing they learned of specific cuts only hours before a meeting. Ward 5 Councillor Matt Francis objected to the proposed decommissioning of the Stoney Creek Arena ice plant, calling it an ineffective savings of $161,000. Councillor Brad Clark said the process lacked resident input. Councillor Cameron Kroetsch described it as “disrespectful.”

These concerns may be sincerely held. But they are not substitutes for governance.

The mayor has been clear that her door was open throughout the process and that few councillors availed themselves of that opportunity. More importantly, councillors now have a defined 30-day window to do what they are elected and compensated to do: propose credible amendments that align with the declared tax target.

That means making choices, not simply pointing out that choices are hard.

If councillors believe the closure of Stoney Creek Arena is unacceptable, they must identify equivalent savings elsewhere—real savings, not rhetorical ones. If delaying the “HSR Next” transit redesign is shortsighted, they must propose how to fund it without increasing the tax burden. If ending blue box pickup for businesses is harmful, they must explain who pays instead.

This is the work.

Municipal budgets are not exercises in consensus-building alone. They are exercises in prioritization under constraint. Every dollar restored to one program must be removed from another, or collected from taxpayers already facing affordability pressures.

Too often, council debates drift into performative outrage, as though the budget appeared from nowhere and councillors were bystanders rather than participants in a multi-month fiscal cycle. Residents deserve better than that.

Hamilton taxpayers are not paying councillors to “decry” budgets. They are paying them to improve them—within the limits set, using the tools available, and with a clear understanding that leadership sometimes means owning difficult decisions rather than distancing oneself from them.

The 2026 budget process is not over. Councillors still have time to demonstrate seriousness, discipline, and respect for the role they were elected to perform. In short, they need to do better. 

The question is whether they will.

The Hamiltonian

Photo by Unsplash

Media Release: From Fire Chief David Cunliffe

At approximately 11:57 a.m. today (Saturday January 24, 2026) the Hamilton Fire Department received a report of a structure fire at 71 Spadina Avenue between Vineland Avenue and Dunsmure Avenue in the City’s east end. At the same time the caller advised that one occupant was still in the house. The first arriving unit reported smoke showing from a two and a half storey home, with people outside and a confirmation of an occupant still inside.

 Firefighters immediately made entry into the house to initiate search and rescue operations. They located the occupant in a first-floor bedroom that had fire involvement. Firefighters knocked down the fire and extracted the occupant to the exterior of the home, where they were turned over to on scene Paramedics who then transported them to hospital.

 Additional crews who had entered the house and were able to quickly extinguish the remaining fire. At the time of writing, the occupant is listed critical condition. It is estimated that the fire has caused approximately $10,000.00. The cause of the fire is currently not known. The Office of the Fire Marshal has been notified due to the critical condition of the occupant rescued.

David R. (Dave) Cunliffe (he/him)
Fire Chief
Hamilton Fire Department

Starting at the Top: An Assessment of Mayor Andrea Horwath- so far.....

The Hamiltonian recently indicated that we would be commencing our election coverage. While the city is not formally in election mode, taxpayers will soon begin sizing up options as to who should lead the city. In short, the puck is almost ready to be dropped. 

Here are some observations with respect to the Mayor. 

Andrea Horwath has now been mayor long enough for Hamilton residents to judge her not by promise, but by performance. The simplest way to assess her term is to ask three questions: Has she set clear priorities? Has she moved files forward? And have outcomes improved in ways people can feel day to day? On those measures, her record is mixed but substantive: tangible progress on housing approvals, transit planning, and climate initiatives; persistent public frustration on affordability, homelessness, taxes, and safety; and periodic controversies that have complicated her message.

Housing and homelessness

Horwath has made housing and homelessness the defining policy lane of her mayoralty. The city exceeded at least one annual housing-start target and secured provincial incentive funding tied to housing delivery. That matters because it reflects more than rhetoric: approvals, starts, and money attached to performance.

At the same time, “more units in the pipeline” has not yet translated into broad relief from rising rents, low vacancy, or visible street-level disorder. Homelessness remains the most immediate and emotionally charged indicator of city distress. Council’s approach during her term has leaned toward harm reduction, temporary shelter solutions, and protocols that attempt to balance compassion with park and neighborhood impacts. This has left Horwath vulnerable to criticism from both sides: some residents feel the city tolerates encampments too readily; others argue the city still lacks enough safe alternatives and supportive housing to make enforcement fair or effective.

The report of the auditor general that slammed the city’s tiny shelter project for its “lack of accountability, governance and control mechanisms", certainly casts an unfavourable shadow over any progress made on the housing file; particularly with the significant cost overruns in the quantum of millions. 

The Mayor's  willingness to use (or threaten to use) strong-mayor powers in a housing dispute signaled a governing style that is generally collaborative but becomes forceful when she believes council decisions jeopardize core housing objectives. Supporters read this as urgency and leadership. Critics read it as heavy-handed and insufficiently consultative.

Transportation and transit

Horwath’s term has also been consequential on transit, mainly because long-debated plans have moved closer to implementation. The Hamilton LRT file advanced through ongoing preparatory steps toward procurement and construction. Meanwhile, council approved a major redesign of the bus network intended to increase frequency, improve cross-city connectivity, and align with the future LRT. These are structural decisions that could improve mobility and economic access over time.

The downside is timing and disruption: residents often experience transit change as years of planning before benefits show up, and major capital projects bring inconvenience before they bring improved service. Horwath deserves credit for advancing the planning and political alignment, but the most visible wins will likely land after significant construction and operational ramp-up.

Fiscal management and taxes

The city faces genuine pressures: inflation, interest rates, infrastructure needs, and cost growth in boards and services that are difficult to compress quickly. Horwath’s philosophy has largely been to protect services and invest in priorities (housing supports, transit, emergency response) rather than pursue large service cuts to hold down tax increases.

That approach is coherent, but it creates a predictable political trade-off: taxpayers see larger bills now, while many benefits are either long-term (transit, housing supply) or targeted (programs that not everyone uses directly). The fairness question is unavoidable: residents who are stretched financially may feel they are paying more without seeing commensurate improvement in core quality-of-life indicators like cleanliness, safety, and affordability.

Public safety and social disorder

Hamilton has faced heightened concern about shootings, hate incidents, and broader social disorder. Horwath’s posture has emphasized prevention and “community safety and well-being” approaches alongside traditional policing. She supported convening and coordination efforts and has also funded emergency services through successive budgets. This is the practical reality of municipal leadership: even mayors who prefer upstream solutions still have to resource police, fire, and paramedics.

Results are mixed. In some periods, shootings and violence have shown signs of easing from prior peaks, but residents’ sense of safety is shaped by high-profile incidents and daily experience at transit stops, parks, and commercial strips. Horwath’s approach may be directionally sound, but the outcomes remain fragile and uneven.

Climate, environment, and growth form

On climate and environmental policy, Horwath has positioned Hamilton as more ambitious: expanding tree planting, supporting home retrofit initiatives, advancing green building standards, and strengthening regional cooperation. She has also been publicly resistant to growth patterns that push outward sprawl when the city argues it can accommodate more housing within the existing urban footprint.

This is an area where municipal action can be real but incremental. Progress is visible in programs and standards; the larger emissions and resilience outcomes depend heavily on industry, transportation patterns, and sustained funding over many years.

Leadership, transparency, and controversies

Horwath’s leadership style has generally been more collaborative and institution-focused than personality-driven. She has been willing to apologize for institutional failures that predate her (notably around infrastructure governance and public trust) and to support reforms. That has helped tone and credibility at City Hall.

However, her term has also included controversies that complicate public confidence. The Mayor says the right things where transparency is concerned, but matching actions with statements is just as important. Residents of Hamilton still are denied information pertaining to how much the city spent managing the water workers strike- tax money. 

The Mayor's interactions with The Hamiltonian have been distant as of late. We will not comment any further, other than to say we will continue to reach out to her with fair questions- even when some of those questions are tough.

Bottom line

Horwath’s tenure to date can be summarized as earnest, policy-heavy, and oriented toward long-term city-building, with measurable movement on housing delivery, transit planning, and climate standards. The central critique is not lack of activity; it is the gap between big structural initiatives and the immediate lived experience of residents facing affordability strain, visible homelessness, and tax fatigue. Some of that disconnect cannot be laid at the Mayor's feet, as it is the nature of longer term solutions. 

If the second half of her term produces clearer, on-the-ground improvements that people can feel (reduced encampment pressure through real shelter capacity, more reliable transit service, credible restraint on tax increases, and sustained reductions in violence), she will be able to argue that early investments and hard decisions were justified. If those daily indicators do not improve, voters may conclude that Hamilton got plans, spending, and process, but not enough results.

Stay tuned...

Tax Facts-Hamilton’s Budget Increases: How the Last Four Elections Compare And What It Means for Taxpayers

Every four years, Hamilton voters elect a new city council. Less visible, but far more impactful on household finances, is what happens to the city budget during each of those terms.

Looking back over the last four municipal election cycles — roughly the past 16 years — Hamilton’s budgets have grown steadily. When adjusted for inflation, the picture becomes clearer and easier to compare both over time and against similar Ontario cities.

First, how Hamilton compares to itself.
Hamilton’s operating budget — the money that pays for day-to-day services like transit, garbage collection, fire, police, parks, and administration — has generally grown at or slightly above inflation over most of the last four terms.

In the late 2000s and early 2010s, operating budget growth was modest. Some years barely kept up with inflation, meaning services expanded very little in real terms. During the mid-2010s, budgets increased more noticeably as council began responding to aging infrastructure, transit pressures, and service demands.

In the most recent term, operating budgets again roughly tracked inflation. In plain terms: the city is spending more dollars, but those dollars buy about the same level of service as before, because costs have risen everywhere.

Capital budgets tell a different story.

Capital budgets pay for long-term items: roads, bridges, transit vehicles, recreation centres, housing projects, and major repairs. For years, Hamilton under-invested in this area. That created the well-known “infrastructure backlog.”

Over the last two terms especially, capital spending has increased faster than inflation. This is not because Hamilton is being extravagant — it is because the city is catching up. Roads that were not fixed a decade ago still need fixing today, and at a higher cost.

Now, how Hamilton compares to similar cities.

When placed beside London, Windsor, Kitchener, and Mississauga, Hamilton sits squarely in the middle.

Windsor kept budget growth very low for many years, sometimes below inflation. That kept taxes down in the short term, but it also meant deferred repairs and tighter services.

Mississauga followed the opposite path. After years of low taxes, its budgets rose sharply in the 2010s as infrastructure aged and growth slowed. Services were maintained, but costs rose quickly once the bill came due.

London and Kitchener took a more balanced approach. Their budgets generally rose slightly above inflation to support growth and service expansion, while avoiding large spikes.

Hamilton’s approach has been closer to London and Kitchener than to either extreme. Budget increases have not been unusually high by Ontario standards, but they have become more noticeable to residents in recent years.

What this means for everyday taxpayers.

For most households, the issue is not whether spending is “reasonable” in theory — it is whether the tax bill feels manageable in practice.

Even when budgets only keep pace with inflation, property tax bills still rise in dollar terms. When capital investment ramps up, those increases become more visible.

In Hamilton, recent tax increases reflect three realities:

– Higher costs due to inflation

– Long-delayed infrastructure repairs

– Growing demands for transit, housing, and social services

None of these pressures are unique to Hamilton. What is different is how openly and clearly they are explained to residents.

The takeaway.

Over the last four elections, Hamilton’s budgets have grown steadily but not exceptionally compared to similar cities. The real challenge is not runaway spending, but the cumulative effect of years of under-investment now coming due all at once.

For taxpayers, that means higher bills today — not because of sudden extravagance, but because past restraint has limits.

Understanding that context matters. It allows residents to debate priorities honestly, rather than reacting only to the final percentage increase on a tax notices.

Photo by Amol Tyagi on Unsplash

With Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, Head of New College, York University, Dr. Zachary Spicer.

Enjoy our chat with Friend of The Hamiltonian and Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, Head of New College, York University, Dr. Zachary Spicer. 

Do strategic plans, scorecards, and performance frameworks meaningfully improve municipal outcomes, or do they risk becoming symbolic? Has Hamilton seen demonstrable results?

Strategic plans and performance frameworks can improve municipal outcomes, but only under fairly demanding conditions. They matter when they are tied to clear ownership, measurable outcomes, regular public reporting, and real consequences for decision-making, particularly through the budget and senior management performance discussions. Without those elements, they often become symbolic documents that signal intent rather than shape behavior.

In Hamilton’s case, the City has adopted multiple iterations of strategic plans and council priorities over time. Where progress is most defensible is in areas with sustained measurement and reporting across multiple years. Where targets are less clearly operationalized, or where reporting is irregular, it becomes much harder to demonstrate that the frameworks themselves produced improved outcomes rather than simply documenting aspirations. The lesson is not that planning tools are ineffective, but that their impact depends on how tightly they are integrated into governance, budgeting, and accountability processes.

Should Hamilton’s persistently low voter turnout be understood as apathy or as a rational response to municipal governance and engagement?

From an academic perspective, low municipal turnout is better understood as a rational response to institutional design and political context than as simple voter apathy. Municipal elections lack many of the cues that mobilize participation, such as party labels, sustained media coverage, and clear policy differentiation, and voters often perceive limited influence over major outcomes.

In Hamilton, turnout in the mid-30 percent range is consistent with trends in many large Canadian cities. In fact, turnout in Hamilton during the last provincial election was slightly higher than the provincial average. This suggests not disengaged citizens, but a system that imposes high information costs relative to perceived stakes. If municipalities want higher participation, the solution lies less in exhorting voters and more in improving how municipal governments communicate priorities, demonstrate impact, and engage residents between elections rather than only during them.

How accountable are city managers to the public, and should Hamilton’s City Manager operate under a formal performance contract?

City managers are primarily accountable to council, not directly to the public, which makes transparency around their objectives and evaluation especially important. In that sense, accountability is indirect: residents hold council accountable, and council in turn oversees senior administration.

I support the idea of a formal performance agreement for Hamilton’s City Manager, provided it is thoughtfully designed. Such an agreement should focus on a small number of clearly defined deliverables tied to council priorities, be accompanied by public reporting on progress, and recognize that not all important outcomes are easily reduced to metrics. The goal should be clarity and trust, not rigid managerialism. Done well, a performance contract can strengthen accountability without politicizing the role. 

How important is organizational culture within city hall, and how does it affect a municipality’s ability to achieve its goals? 

Organizational culture is critical because it determines how strategy is actually executed. Culture shapes whether staff feel empowered to surface problems, collaborate across departments, experiment with new approaches, and report honestly on setbacks. 

A city hall with a risk-averse or siloed culture can struggle to implement even the best-designed strategies. Conversely, a culture that values learning, transparency, and problem-solving can adapt quickly when plans encounter real-world constraints. In practice, culture often matters more than formal strategy because it governs day-to-day decision-making when political direction is ambiguous or contested.

Is there sufficient rigorous scrutiny of municipal governance across Hamilton’s local media landscape?

Municipal governance is generally under-scrutinized relative to its impact on residents’ daily lives. This is less a question of journalistic intent than of capacity. Municipal governments produce a high volume of complex decisions, while local newsrooms, both mainstream and independent, operate with limited resources.

 Independent outlets often add valuable depth and persistence, while mainstream media provide reach and legitimacy, but neither can comprehensively track implementation, performance, and follow-through across all major files. The real gap is sustained accountability journalism: not just reporting decisions when they are announced, but revisiting them months or years later to assess delivery, cost, and outcomes. This can be hard to do. 

What structural reforms could realistically improve transparency, accountability, and public confidence without provincial legislative change? 

First, Hamilton could strengthen its public performance reporting by maintaining a stable, accessible dashboard tied directly to council priorities, with clear ownership and regular updates. This would allow residents to see what is on track, what is delayed, and why. 

Second, the City could move toward proactive disclosure as the default, routinely publishing decision rationales, procurement summaries, and briefing materials wherever legally possible. This reduces friction between residents and government and builds trust through openness. 

Third, Hamilton could institutionalize continuous public engagement, such as standing resident panels or participatory budgeting pilots, so that participation is not limited to elections or one-off consultations. When residents can see how their input connects to real decisions, confidence in municipal governance tends to improve.

The Hamiltonian thanks Dr. Spicer for sharing his insights and engaging with Hamiltonians in The Hamiltonian!

The Mayor's Statement Regarding the 2026 Proposed Budget- The Hamiltonian's View

The Mayor’s statement is optimistic. It emphasizes momentum, discipline, and affordability, and positions the proposed 4.25 per cent tax increase as both restrained and responsive. Beyond the reassuring language, the statement leaves several substantive questions unanswered — questions residents and councillors should be pressing as the budget moves forward.

First, “holding the line” is doing a lot of work here. A 4.25 per cent increase may be lower than earlier staff scenarios, but it still represents a meaningful cost increase for households already facing rising property taxes, utility costs, and inflation-driven pressures. The statement does not explain how “affordability” is being measured from a resident’s point of view rather than a City Hall one.

The Mayor repeatedly cites what “Hamiltonians were clear about,” without specifics about how public input materially changed the budget. What services were scaled back, deferred, or redesigned as a result? What infrastructure projects slowed to a “more realistic pace,” and which ones proceeded unchanged?

The promise to “work smarter” and “find efficiencies” is familiar language. Where exactly will efficiencies be found? Through staffing reductions, service consolidation, delayed projects, or operational restructuring? Residents have heard similar commitments before, often followed by service pressures surfacing later in less visible ways.

The Mayor also highlights that this is the first year she has put a specific budget number forward, presenting it as a disciplined leadership moment. That may be politically significant, but it also shifts responsibility. If this number is a firm ceiling, councillors — not staff — will now bear the burden of explaining what doesn’t get funded, delayed, or expanded. That makes the next 30 days critical, not procedural.

The Mayor’s statement leans heavily on momentum — growth, housing, investment — without addressing the growing concern that Hamilton’s fiscal challenges are increasingly structural rather than cyclical. An aging city with expanding responsibilities cannot rely indefinitely on optimism and incremental restraint. At some point, Council will need to confront whether current service expectations, governance models, and revenue tools are aligned with reality.

In short, the Mayor has set a tone and a number. What remains to be seen is whether this budget truly reflects hard choices, or whether it postpones them — once again — into future years.

Hamilton is indeed moving forward. The question Council must now answer is: forward toward what, and at whose cost?

The Hamiltonian

Statement from Mayor Horwath Regarding the 2026 Proposed Tax Budget

Hamilton has strong momentum. We are attracting investment, supporting small businesses, creating jobs, and building housing - and my commitment is to keep that momentum going, even in uncertain times.

The proposed 2026 tax budget reflects targeted adjustments to the staff proposal and delivers on the commitment I made to Hamiltonians: holding the line on affordability by setting a proposed increase of 4.25% - protecting the services people rely on and continuing responsible investments in our city’s infrastructure.

Residents were clear that affordability is top of mind, that core services need to be protected, that infrastructure investment must continue at a more realistic pace, and that safe neighbourhoods matter. Guided by the Budget Directive I issued in October, this budget focuses on the essentials people rely on every day - fixing roads, renewing aging infrastructure, investing in transit, and supporting community safety - while requiring the city to work smarter, find efficiencies, and ensure tax dollars are used wisely.

Hamilton is both an aging city and a growing city. This budget takes care of what we have today while planning responsibly for growth, housing, and economic opportunity.

This is the first year I have put a budget number forward. Based on what I heard from Hamiltonians, the proposed budget sets a clear limit and provides Council with a strong disciplined starting point.

The budget now moves to the whole of Council for review, where they will have 30 days to review, propose amendments, deliberate and vote on amendments. I look forward to working collaboratively with my Council colleagues to deliver a balanced, responsible budget that reflects residents’ priorities and keeps Hamilton moving forward.

To deliver a hold the line budget doesn’t mean doing less. It means making disciplined, thoughtful choices — choices that meet the needs of today, while continuing to fuel Hamilton’s momentum.