Hamilton City Council (version 135)- The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

While it is still relatively early, Hamiltonians may soon be turning their minds to evaluating city council, particularly as we approach a municipal election.

Since the current term began after the 2022 election (Council took office November 15, 2022, with an inaugural meeting on November 16, 2022), Hamilton’s governing record is best described as pragmatic on budgets, active on housing programs, and uneven on governance and crisis-management.  The Andrea Horwath administration has repeatedly framed affordability as a “hold-the-line” priority, culminating in a 3.87% residential tax increase in the 2026 budget alongside $42.6M in operational savings/efficiencies identified by staff. Yet two defining files—the 2024 cyberattack and the encampment enforcement reversal—exposed real limits: service disruption, large unplanned costs, and polarized public trust. A failure to disclose the costs of the Water Workers' strike, did not help either.

 The Good

Council, under a mayor with a clear affordability brand, ultimately delivered moderating tax decisions relative to earlier “sticker-shock” projections—most notably in 2026, with a 3.87% residential increase, paired with a large, explicit efficiencies target and a still-substantial capital/infrastructure program ($622M, including roads, transit assets, and facilities).  This matters for voters because it shows a governing coalition capable of closing a budget without continuous procedural breakdown (even as big pressures—housing, inflation, aging assets—persist). 

On housing, the term produced concrete program architecture, not just rhetoric: Hamilton secured a three‑year Housing Accelerator Fund allocation (stated as $23.5M annually for three years) tied to incentives and a net-new unit target, and Council created/used a “Housing Secretariat” structure to push cross‑departmental delivery.  The City also announced municipal investments supporting affordable/supportive housing pipelines (e.g., an eight‑project package tied to ~1,200 units over three years, with 2025 funding combined with surplus from 2024). 

On transit and climate-adjacent mobility, ridership recovery is a genuine bright spot: after 19.1M riders in 2023, HSR surpassed pre‑pandemic levels with 21.84M in 2024 (a 14.5% increase over 2023), alongside documented progress on active transportation build‑out (e.g., 13.6 km of bike lanes added in 2024; annual climate reporting tracked tree planting and other initiatives).  The City also described its climate planning as moving toward a “faster and bolder” approach (including discussion of accelerating net‑zero targets), reflecting a political willingness to formally revisit ambition, even if implementation remains the hard part.

The Bad

A fair critique is that the term’s management capacity has been periodically overwhelmed, and residents experienced that directly. The February 25, 2024 cyberattack disrupted major systems and services; even with containment and recovery work, it exposed gaps (including multi‑factor authentication compliance issues reported later) and slowed normal reporting rhythms.  In budget/accountability terms, City reporting itself notes routine variance reporting was paused after the cyber incident, weakening the public’s ability to track “in‑year” financial performance the way they otherwise could. 

On major projects, Council’s role is partly constrained by provincial agencies, but voters still feel the consequences of slippage. The Hamilton LRT file remains emblematic: Metrolinx describes procurement/enabling works as underway, and the line is consistently marketed as transformational—yet it is not in service, and timelines remain a live political vulnerability for any City Hall leadership claiming “city‑building” success. 

Housing supply results, meanwhile, are volatile: City economic development reporting (from CMHC) shows a sharp drop in housing starts in 2024 (1,481) from the stronger 2021–2023 period (each year exceeding 3,300), with a partial rebound in 2025 (2,577).  That pattern undercuts any simplistic “Council fixed housing” narrative; municipal tools can accelerate—but cannot fully override—financing conditions, labour constraints, and provincial/federal policy shifts.

The Ugly

Three files dominate the “ugly” category because they combine high emotion, high cost, and long‑tail trust damage.

First, the cyberattack’s financial and governance aftermath: the City reported $18.3M spent through June 30, 2025 on response/recovery/expert support, confirmed it did not pay the ransom, and confirmed its insurer denied coverage based on policy terms (with third‑party legal review supporting the denial).  Even if rebuilding improves long‑term resilience, voters are left with a core question: why wasn’t the City already compliant with required security controls when the risk environment was well-known?

Second, homelessness/encampments. Council rescinded the encampment protocol effective March 6, 2025 and returned to parks by‑law enforcement after litigation and a court decision; enforcement actions then became a defining public‑space flashpoint.  This is “ugly” not because enforcement is inherently illegitimate, but because the file forces a painful trade‑off between Charter‑framed human need and shared public space, while revealing the limits of municipal shelter/housing capacity.

Governance scandals were not dominated by corruption—but by conduct and trust erosion. Integrity‑related findings and reporting included code‑of‑conduct rulings involving councillor behaviour toward staff/community members,, and an Integrity Commissioner report finding a councillor failed to disclose a non‑disqualifying interest related to encampment litigation counsel.  While these are not “cash‑for‑access” scandals, they matter: procedural integrity and respect for institutions are foundational to competent service delivery.

Third, the disastrous way mini cabins were handled was also a stain on the city and its politicians.

Voter takeaways

If your top issue is tax stability + core services, this Council’s strongest argument is the 2026 “hold-the-line” budget framing plus identified efficiencies, while still funding large infrastructure renewal. 

If your top issue is housing, look past announcements: starts fell sharply in 2024 and rebounded in 2025; ask each candidate what they will do to stabilize approvals, land readiness, and affordable delivery in down markets. 

If your top issue is transit/climate, ridership recovery is real and measurable, but the LRT remains unfinished; press candidates on timelines, corridor disruption plans, and operating funding. 

If your top issue is governance, the cyber file and multiple conduct rulings, as well as the way mini cabins were handled.  suggest the next term must prioritize operational accountability, respectful decision‑making, and transparent reporting. 

If your top issue is homelessness and public space, demand clarity: what is the plan to reduce encampments through shelter, supportive housing, and health responses—beyond enforcement cycles? 

If your top issue is transparency, ask why Hamiltonians still have not been told how much the water workers strike cost taxpayers. 

A Council that can pass budgets and build programs—but must prove, before the next election, that it can also prevent “system shocks” (cyber, homelessness) from turning into avoidable trust crises.

Horwath vs. Loomis Round 2, or something else entirely?

With Keanin Loomis having declared his intention to once again seek the office of Mayor of Hamilton, residents will inevitably begin to consider what a second contest between Loomis and incumbent Mayor Andrea Horwath might look like — assuming Mayor Horwath chooses to run.

The dynamics of a potential rematch would differ significantly from their previous encounter. Horwath would enter the race as the sitting mayor, able to point to an established record in office, budget decisions, council leadership, and the exercise of strong-mayor authorities. Loomis, by contrast, would bring forward his background as a private-sector executive, positioning himself as an alternative grounded in business leadership and organizational management.

Should the contest narrow to Horwath versus Loomis — and it must be emphasized that leadership in Hamilton is not confined to these two individuals — several considerations would likely shape the debate and voter calculus.

At its core, this race would likely be framed as experience in public office versus executive leadership from outside City Hall.

Andrea Horwath, governs from a social-democratic policy framework rooted in affordability, public services, housing expansion, and municipal advocacy. Her 2026 budget messaging has emphasized “hold-the-line” discipline while protecting core services, infrastructure investment, paramedics, housing supports, and community safety. Horwath’s strength lies in her political experience, name recognition, union relationships, and deep understanding of and now experience with, the legislative process under Ontario’s strong-mayor system.

However, vulnerabilities remain. Property tax pressures, infrastructure backlogs, public frustration over encampments, downtown safety, and municipal efficiency debates present openings for a challenger. Critics argue that while messaging stresses affordability, tax increases remain significant for homeowners already under strain.

Keanin Loomis, known for his role at the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, could position himself as a pragmatic, pro-growth, business-focused alternative. His base appeal may center on economic development, fiscal restraint, regulatory reform, and accelerating approvals for housing and commercial projects. Loomis can campaign as someone not shaped by partisan provincial politics and not embedded in long-standing council dynamics.

His potential strength lies in private-sector credibility and appeal to business owners, developers, and voters concerned about taxes and economic competitiveness. He could frame the race around efficiency, accountability, and measurable outcomes.

Yet Loomis faces challenges. He has never held elected office. Translating boardroom leadership into retail politics is not automatic. He would need to continue to build name recognition and reassure voters that pro-growth policies would not undermine social supports or environmental protections. Opponents may attempt to brand him as representing corporate interests over neighbourhood concerns.

Strategically, Horwath’s campaign would likely emphasize stability, experience, and protecting services in uncertain economic times. Loomis’s campaign would likely stress change, performance metrics, and restoring fiscal confidence.

Key battleground issues would include: tax rates versus service levels; housing supply and development approvals; encampment policy and downtown revitalization; infrastructure financing; and Hamilton’s competitiveness relative to other Ontario municipalities.

Debate dynamics could be sharp. Horwath would bring legislative fluency and political combat experience. Loomis would aim for executive-style clarity and business language centered on results.

Ultimately, this contest would ask Hamilton voters a fundamental question: Do they want continuity anchored in public-sector governance experience, or a recalibration?

If Loomis consolidates the “change” vote and Horwath maintains progressive and labour support, turnout and suburban versus urban alignment could determine the outcome.

Having said that, it is still early days and anything or anyone can happen.

Loomis Intends to Run for Mayor of Hamilton

In a recent Facebook post, Keanin Loomis has declared his intent to once again run for Mayor of the City of Hamilton. 

Link to his Facebook announcement is here

On the Budget- The Hamiltonian's View

The City of Hamilton has formally adopted its 2026 Tax Budget, positioning it as a disciplined, affordability-focused plan that balances fiscal restraint with continued investment in essential services and infrastructure. Led by Mayor Andrea Horwath and City Manager Marnie Cluckie, the budget reflects a “hold-the-line” approach within the framework of the Ontario Municipal Act and the City’s strong-mayor governance structure.

At its core, the budget’s principal strength is predictability. A 3.87 percent residential tax increase—approximately $209 annually on a home assessed at $387,100—lands below the Mayor’s stated ceiling and is presented as comparable to peer municipalities. In an environment of inflation, elevated borrowing costs, and aging infrastructure, maintaining a sub-4 percent increase signals fiscal discipline. The identification of $42.6 million in operational savings through a line-by-line departmental review further reinforces the administration’s narrative of internal restraint before external taxation.

Substantively, the budget protects core service areas. Continued investment in roads, sidewalks, transit, and emergency services reflects a commitment to maintaining service reliability. The addition of ten paramedics responds directly to call-volume pressures. Significant capital allocations—$622 million overall, including $116.3 million for transit and $106.1 million for road and sidewalk maintenance—address infrastructure lifecycle obligations that municipalities cannot defer without compounding long-term costs.

The affordability measures are also noteworthy. Reduced childcare fees to $22 per day provide tangible relief to working families. Property tax deferrals for seniors and low-income residents, increased recreation assistance funding, and housing stability investments signal targeted social policy interventions embedded within the tax plan. The $209 million allocated toward affordable housing and homelessness supports demonstrates that the City is continuing to treat housing as both a social and economic priority.

The budget also shows strategic economic intent. Investments in brownfield remediation, commercial revitalization, procurement policy updates favoring local suppliers, and the launch of a 2026 Year of Music initiative suggest a broader economic development and placemaking strategy. These measures aim

Media Release:City of Hamilton adopts 2026 Tax Budget focused on affordability and protecting critical services

Balanced plan maintains core services, invests in infrastructure, strengthens community safety and supports Hamiltonians

HAMILTON, ON – The City of Hamilton has adopted the 2026 Tax Budget, a balanced and disciplined financial plan that protects the services residents rely on every day, invests in critical infrastructure and supports community safety, while keeping affordability top of mind for Hamiltonians.

“With costs continuing to rise, Hamiltonians are feeling real financial pressure, and that reality shaped every decision in this budget,” said Mayor Andrea Horwath. “From the beginning, I set a clear ‘hold-the-line’ direction: protect essential services, invest responsibly in infrastructure and community safety, and keep affordability front and center. This budget delivers on that commitment. It remains below the maximum target I set, includes savings from operational efficiencies, and strengthens the services Hamiltonians rely on every day - from paramedics and housing supports to roads, transit and childcare.”

Mayor Horwath added, “Council worked through the process set out in the Ontario Municipal Act, brought forward and voted on amendments which I have not vetoed so that we can move forward together with certainty and stability. This is a disciplined and balanced plan that responds to today’s affordability pressures while positioning Hamilton for long-term success.”

The adopted budget includes a 3.87 per cent residential tax increase, representing approximately $209