Ward 13- Up for Grabs

Ward 13 Councillor Alex Wilson will not be seeking to be re-elected.

Ward 13 is not easily understood through a typical urban lens. It is a ward shaped as much by land as by policy—stretching across Flamborough, Dundas Greensville, and surrounding rural communities where farmland, escarpment, and village life form the backbone of daily experience. Here, municipal decisions are rarely abstract. They are felt in the soil, in traffic patterns on rural roads, in the protection—or perceived erosion—of long-standing ways of life.

For years, Ward 13 has been central to some of Hamilton’s most contentious debates. The question of urban boundary expansion has loomed large, with many residents firmly opposed to the idea of outward growth into agricultural lands. That resistance has not been theoretical—it has been organized, vocal, and persistent. In parallel, issues such as quarry and aggregate extraction have stirred deep concern, particularly around environmental impacts, water systems, and heavy truck traffic through rural corridors.

At the same time, the ward has lived with a quieter but equally important tension: the uneven distribution of municipal services. Infrastructure gaps, limited transit, and the realities of maintaining rural roads have contributed to a longstanding perception among some residents that Ward 13 exists at the edge of municipal priorities rather than at their centre.

Within that landscape, Alex Wilson carved out a role that was often independent, sometimes oppositional, and consistently rooted in a strong reading of local sentiment. His approach did not always align with the prevailing direction of council, particularly on growth and development issues, but it reflected a clear responsiveness to the communities he represented. Whether one agreed with his positions or not, his presence ensured that rural concerns were not easily sidelined.

His stepping away, changes the political calculus immediately. Without an incumbent, Ward 13 becomes one of the most open—and potentially competitive—races in the next municipal election. The advantages that typically shape local contests—name recognition, established networks, a defined voting record—are suddenly removed. What replaces them is something less predictable but more revealing: a contest built almost entirely on vision.

That shift matters. Candidates will not be running against a sitting councillor’s record, nor will they be able to rely on continuity as a default message. Instead, they will need to articulate clearly what Ward 13 should become. For some, that will mean doubling down on preservation—protecting farmland, resisting expansion, and maintaining the rural character that defines the ward. For others, it may mean acknowledging that growth pressures are inevitable and focusing instead on how to manage them in a way that respects community identity while addressing broader city needs.

What is almost certain is that the race will engage residents in a meaningful way. Ward 13 has never been passive when it comes to issues that affect its future, and an open seat—combined with ongoing debates around land use, environment, and development—will likely draw strong participation from both candidates and voters.

There is also a broader implication for City Hall. While it is only one vote, Ward 13 has historically carried influence beyond its numbers, particularly in debates tied to planning, environment, and growth strategy. A new councillor could reinforce the ward’s traditional stance as a counterweight to expansion, or signal a shift toward a more accommodating approach to development. Either outcome would subtly reshape the balance of discussion around the council table.

For Ward 13 itself, the moment presents a genuine opportunity. With no incumbent defining the conversation, the ward has space to re-express its priorities—to decide not just what it opposes, but what it supports. It can also redefine how it engages with the rest of the city, potentially moving from a posture of resistance to one of influence, where rural perspectives help shape, rather than simply respond to, Hamilton’s growth trajectory.

What comes next will depend on who steps forward and how they frame that choice. Open seats tend to attract a mix of seasoned community advocates, single-issue candidates, and newcomers who see an opening. In Ward 13, where identity and land are so closely tied, the field is unlikely to be thin.

The departure of Alex Wilson,, marks the end of a particular chapter. What follows will not simply be a replacement, but a redefinition. For voters, the decision ahead is less about continuity and more about direction—about what kind of ward they want to be, and how they want that voice to be heard at City Hall.

Will you be running for Ward 13 Councillor? If so, write to us to be featured in The Hamiltonian- Hamilton's Taste maker.

The Hamiltonian- Our Roots

For the past 16 years, The Hamiltonian has thrived under the astute leadership of our Publisher, Teresa DiFalco.

Our origins trace back to August of 2009, when founder Cal DiFalco launched The Hamiltonian and served as its inaugural Publisher. The following article, published in the Stoney Creek News on November 13, 2009, offers a glimpse into our early beginnings:

 

Click on image to enlarge

Jason Farr vs. Tammy Hwang: Ward 4 May Become a Test of Experience, Local Fit and Political Style

Former Ward 2 councillor Jason Farr’s decision to seek the Ward 4 council seat immediately changes the complexion of the 2026 race. Ward 4 is currently represented by Tammy Hwang, a first-term councillor who won the open seat in 2022 after longtime councillor Sam Merulla retired. Hwang won with 23 per cent of the vote in an 11-candidate race, meaning she entered office with a mandate, but not an overwhelming one. 

The contrast between Farr and Hwang is clear.

Farr brings name recognition, council experience, political confidence and a record shaped by downtown redevelopment, media fluency and years inside City Hall. He represented Ward 2 before losing the seat in 2022 to Cameron Kroetsch, then ran provincially for the Ontario Liberals in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. Since leaving council, he has remained politically active and publicly visible, including through communications, government relations and his “Hammer Down” platform.

Hwang brings a different profile. She is a Ward 4-rooted councillor with a background in municipal economic development, immigrant attraction, entrepreneurship and community engagement. Her own biography emphasizes deep East Hamilton ties, including her family’s business at King and Province, her Delta Secondary School connection, and her work inside City Hall before being elected. 

Politically, Farr is the more seasoned operator. He knows council procedure, understands media, and is unlikely to be intimidated by the machinery of municipal government. His strength is experience. His vulnerability is geography and timing and he was a member of a previous council that did not do well in its re-election bids. 

Ward 4 voters may fairly ask why a former Ward 2 councillor is now seeking to represent East Hamilton, especially when Ward 4 has its own distinct identity, industrial base, neighbourhood pressures and local loyalties. Ward 4 is not downtown. It stretches from Ottawa Street to the Red Hill, with a major industrial and commercial footprint including ArcelorMittal Dofasco and the Centre on Barton.

Hwang’s strength is local fit. Her style is quieter, more community-facing and less performative than Farr’s. She has positioned herself as a listener and connector rather than a political showperson. That may appeal to residents who want steady representation rather than a return to a more old-school, high-profile style of municipal politics.

Her vulnerability is that first-term councillors are often judged less on effort than on visible results. Ward 4 residents will ask whether their streets feel safer, whether neighbourhood concerns are being acted upon, whether development is being managed well, and whether City Hall is responding quickly enough. 

On council, Hwang has generally aligned with the current progressive-to-centre governing bloc on major budget matters. For example, she supported key elements of the 2026 budget process, opposed an increase to the City Enrichment Fund, and voted with the majority on several service-level and operational questions. 

Farr’s campaign will likely argue that Ward 4 needs a more experienced hand: someone who can navigate City Hall, push files, attract attention and deliver results. Hwang’s campaign will likely argue that Ward 4 needs continuity, local understanding and a councillor whose roots are in the ward rather than in municipal ambition.

The race may therefore turn less on ideology and more on trust.

Farr will need to prove that he is not simply looking for a political re-entry point. Hwang will need to prove that her first term has produced enough momentum to deserve a second.

For Ward 4 voters, the choice may come down to this: do they want a veteran political operator with a known City Hall style, or a first-term local councillor building her record but more naturally identified with the ward itself?

Mayor Horwath on LRT Announcement

Today’s announcement marks another important step forward for Hamilton’s LRT and the future of our city. 

I’m thrilled to see this momentum and what it means for Hamilton as we continue to move this project ahead

.
Beyond faster, more reliable transit, this investment will deliver real benefits for residents - from new housing and economic growth along the corridor, to much-needed upgrades to roads, utilities, and public spaces. It’s about building stronger neighbourhoods, supporting local businesses, and making it easier for people to get where they need to go. 

Through strong partnerships with the Province of Ontario, Metrolinx, and the Government of Canada, we are delivering a project that will have lasting impact across Hamilton for years to come.

Keanin Loomis on LRT Announcement

Statement issued by Keanin Loomis concerning LRT Announcement: 

Today’s LRT announcement marks a meaningful milestone for Hamilton. After years of delays and uncertainty, it’s encouraging to see progress on a project that will shape the future of our city.

LRT has always been about more than transit. It’s about building a stronger, more connected Hamilton. It is a rare opportunity for upper levels of government to fund the replacement of outdated infrastructure, while also helping to grow the assessment base along two of our underperforming main roads.

Today’s progress reflects the persistence of many individuals and organizations across Hamilton who, for over a decade, never gave up on this vision, and I’m proud to have been part of that effort.

I was a steadfast advocate for LRT—championing it at City Council and continuing that work with both the provincial and federal governments to revive the project after its cancellation.

I appreciated the invitation to attend today’s announcement in recognition of those efforts. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend due to a prior commitment advocating on behalf of the Canadian steel industry.

As we move into the next phase, the focus must be on delivery—getting it built on time, on budget and ensuring Hamiltonians are engaged every step of the way. This will require strong coordination with our government partners, disciplined project management and a clear focus on minimizing disruption for residents and businesses.

This is an important moment for Hamilton. Now we need leadership with the experience to deliver.

After the Shock: Will Hamilton Act — or Convene Again?

A 16-year-old is dead. Another teenager stands accused. And the shooting did not happen in a back alley or at the margins—it happened inside Jackson Square, in the heart of Hamilton.

In response, Police Chief Frank Bergen has called a meeting of civic leaders, including Mayor Andrea Horwath, school boards, business leaders, and community agencies. The stated goal: “actionable, tangible next steps.”

It is the right instinct. But Hamilton has seen this instinct before.

What is unfolding now is less a coordinated response than a familiar pattern of fragmented accountability.

Councillor Cameron Kroetsch points to a lack of youth programming in the downtown core. He is not wrong. The loss of federal funding for prevention programs and the absence of a secondary school downtown represent real structural gaps.

Hamilton Centre MPP Robin Lennox, meanwhile, cites underinvestment in housing, poverty reduction, and youth opportunity.

Each of these perspectives contains truth. But taken together, they reveal the central problem: no single actor owns the outcome. 

And that is precisely why these moments so often fail to produce lasting change.

The debate itself—prevention versus enforcement—is also increasingly unhelpful. Hamilton does not face a binary choice. It faces a systems challenge.

Prevention without enforcement lacks immediacy.
Enforcement without prevention lacks durability.

A teenager does not arrive at a moment like this overnight. Nor does a firearm appear in a public mall by accident. These are the endpoints of layered failures—family, social, economic, institutional—and they demand a layered response.

Chief Bergen is right to caution that “more programs” alone will not solve the issue. At the same time, programs do matter—if they are targeted, accessible, and sustained.

Equally, enforcement matters—if it is focused, intelligence-led, and paired with intervention.

What will determine whether this latest effort succeeds is not the meeting itself, but what follows it.

Will there be clear ownership?
Will funding be attached to solutions?
Will outcomes be measured—and reported publicly?

Or will this become another well-intentioned gathering that dissipates into jurisdictional debate?

Hamilton does not need another conversation about youth violence. It needs a coordinated strategy with consequences for failure and accountability for results.

Because what happened at Jackson Square was not just an isolated act.

It was a signal.

The question now is whether the city will treat it as one.

Mayor Andrea Horwath is correct in characterizing this as a complex matter. That complexity demands a response equal in scope and seriousness. To date, such a response has not materialized—one that is coordinated, enterprise-wide, and capable of addressing the issue and others issues at their roots. Until that happens, the conditions that give rise to violence and related challenges will persist.

Before the Ballot: Questions for Hamilton's Next Mayor

The Hamiltonian is launching a new feature titled Before the Ballot: Questions for Hamilton’s Next Mayor.

As the municipal election approaches, we will be putting a consistent series of focused questions to all declared and prospective mayoral candidates. Responses will be published in full, providing readers with a clear and fair basis to compare positions over time. Where a candidate chooses not to respond, that will be noted for transparency.

We believe Hamiltonians are best served when they have the opportunity to consider the views of all those seeking to lead the city.

Our first instalment features potential mayoral candidate Scarlett Gillespie. This set of questions has been circulated to all known potential candidates.

We invite you to read our conversation with Ms. Gillespie.

Jackson Square was once envisioned as a “people place” at the heart of Hamilton’s downtown. Today, it reflects mounting pressures tied to safety concerns, disorder, and declining commercial activity.

Do you believe Hamilton’s downtown—beginning with areas like Jackson Square—requires fundamental transformation? If so, what specific, actionable plan would you lead to restore safety, economic viability, and public confidence? How would your plan be different from others attempts Hamiltonians have seen in the past? 

If you are in support of a concerted effort to transform Hamilton’s s downtown, what do you say to those who would argue that such an effort would take away from other priority issues in other parts of the city?

Ms. Gillespie's reply is as follows:

I think the premise of the question is flawed, because it treats Jackson Square as a failed space that needs to be “fixed,” rather than a complex, functioning part of our downtown that has been misunderstood and mismanaged. 

Jackson Square isn’t just a mall: it’s a civic hub. It connects office workers, small businesses, the library, the farmers’ market, transit, and people seeking shelter or services. It brings together all walks of life in one place. So the issue isn’t whether we “transform” it. The issue is whether we finally take responsibility for how it’s governed.

Right now, the conversation is being framed as if the City can simply redesign or “fix” the site. That’s not accurate. The City of Hamilton owns the land under Jackson Square, but the mall itself is privately controlled through a series of long-term 99-year leases held by Yale Properties, with approximately 56 years remaining on that term. And for years, we’ve had that leverage - and we haven’t used it well. At times, we’ve even considered selling it off entirely; in 2024, Yale Properties tried to renegotiate their lease to add an additional 50 years to their existing 99-year term. They expressed that they would consider purchasing the property (land) all together if given this extension as they represented that they needed to justify and defray the cost of any future capital expenses like renovations.  

So before we talk about transformation, we need to be honest about governance. For decades, the City has had leverage and hasn’t used it effectively.  That means any meaningful transformation requires political will, leverage, and renegotiation - not just vision statements.

Do I believe downtown needs better leadership? Yes. But not the kind of transformation that starts with blaming “disorder” or treating Jackson Square as a security problem which often responds with inadequate surface-level fixes. What people are calling “disorder” is often just visibility of poverty, mental health struggles, and addiction. Jackson Square reflects the realities of our city - it doesn't create them. Real safety comes from activity, inclusion, and design, not displacement.

The real issue is structural: Jackson Square was designed to be insulated; it cuts itself off from the city instead of contributing to it.  . The mall cuts off streets, limiting entrances and pedestrian flow, ultimately disconnecting itself from the surrounding city instead of contributing to the quality of public life in Hamilton. My plan would start there: with structure, not stigma. My plan focuses on that root problem.

First, I would use the City’s position as landowner to renegotiate the terms of that lease in the public interest. Any extension or amendment of the lease needs to be tied to enforceable requirements: opening the building to the street, increasing entrances, activating dead frontages, and restoring access, integration, and therefore walkability within the surrounding neighbourhood.

Second, we stop treating Jackson Square as an isolated problem; the mall is a part of a larger civic district and should be planned together as part of downtown: The FirstOntario Centre, the Convention Centre, the former City Centre lands, and surrounding streets. Right now, we’re redeveloping pieces in isolation, when what we need is a coordinated master plan for the largest employment and civic hub in the city.

Third, we shift the conversation on safety. Safety doesn’t come from over-policing or pushing people out: it comes from activity, visibility, and inclusion. Safety follows activity. That means:

• attracting customers at different times of day (arts, food, services, community uses)
• increased cultural programming
• supporting small, local businesses; not just large anchor tenants
• making space for the communities already there, instead of trying to displace them
• designing spaces people actually want to be in

We’ve known for decades that breaking up superblocks and restoring street-level connections would improve this site, but previous plans were never implemented. If I become Mayor, I would tie approvals and negotiations to actually delivering those changes.

What makes this different from past attempts is simple: accountability. Since the City owns the land, we need to stop negotiating passively like we are a bystander. The city has power it can leverage to improve the quality of life for every Hamiltonian, which it has failed to do thus far. 

Finally, to those who say focusing on downtown takes away from other parts of the city - I would say the opposite is true. A functioning downtown generates economic activity, jobs, and tax revenue that supports the entire city's services and programs. When it works, it supports services and investment across every ward.   Treating Jackson Square as a “special project” instead of critical infrastructure is exactly how we got here.

Hamilton doesn’t need another cosmetic revitalization plan. It needs to use the power it already has - and to stop squandering that power towards the benefit of all Hamiltonians. 

Sincerely,

Scarlett Gillespie

Thank-you Ms. Gillespie for engaging with Hamiltonians in The Hamiltonian. To read a prior piece featuring  Ms. Gillespie, click here.