mayoral

Wednesday October 19, 2022

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday October 19, 2022

Hamilton’s mayoral candidates

2014 Mayoral Race

There are a lot of differences among the nine people running for mayor of Hamilton. But many of them have things in common — an interest in changing housing, infrastructure, and the culture at city hall. And while some of these ideas may sound familiar to voters, others aren’t even within the mayor’s power to enact, falling under provincial or federal jurisdiction. (CBC)

 

Saturday September 17, 2022

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday September 17, 2022

Beyond LRT and How to pay for it and Transit

For the first election in years, “LRT is not the central issue,” said Karl Andrus of the Hamilton Transit Riders’ Union. “I’m elated to see conversations about transit moving beyond just ‘yes or no’ to LRT.”

August 22, 2012

That’s a big change from elections in 2014 and 2018 — both of which featured serious candidates campaigning to kill the 14-kilometre light-rail transit plan for the lower city in favour of building bus rapid transit.

The city’s transit union still wants to make an election issue out of LRT — particularly, over whether the city will operate the train instead of a private consortium like the one running the LRT in Kitchener-Waterloo, said vice-president Rob Doucette. “We want to hear specifically if (candidates) will commit to keep public transit in public hands.”

But unlike in past elections, no major mayoral candidate is openly campaigning against LRT — likely in part due to $3.4-billion in new federal and provincial funding for the project. Major construction is supposed to start by 2024.

That means candidates can “move beyond” the yes or no LRT question to explaining to voters how they would make the entire transit system better for residents, said Andrus.

He said that includes expanding bus service to underserved suburban communities like Binbrook, Waterdown and Stoney Creek — and finally moving ahead on a nearly 15-year-old “BLAST” rapid transit vision for the rest of the city.

May 12, 2012

The grassroots riders’ union argues all those improvements require an overhaul of Hamilton’s “bizarre” system of taxing different areas of the city more or less for transit. That debate over ending so-called “area rating” of transit could prove just as controversial as past LRT battles, Andrus conceded.

“In the mayor’s race, everyone has kind of run away from that issue,” he suggested.

“Area rating” of taxes sounds like a boring bureaucratic argument — but the question of how and who Hamilton taxes for bus service can really fire up political debate (and taxpayer ire).

A short summary of a two-decade argument: When Hamilton amalgamated suburban communities like Ancaster, Binbrook, Waterdown, Dundas and Stoney Creek in 2001, it created different tax rates for transit based on level of service and old geographical boundaries.

Meant as a temporary measure, the geography-based tax rates never disappeared — leaving Hamilton as the only large Ontario city where urban residents pay different rates for transit depending on where they live.

August 14, 2014

So in 2019, for example, the average old-city homeowner paid about $389 a year for transit compared to $184 for the urban parts of Ancaster, $201 for Glanbrook and $137 in Stoney Creek. Rural residents pay no taxes for transit.

Forcing all urban residents across Hamilton to pay the same transit tax rate should result in a tax cut for the old city and a hike of between two and four per cent in former amalgamated communities.

But Andrus suggests the city could skip the old-city tax cut, with extra money raised “plowed directly back into improving transit” in poorly served areas.

Otherwise, he argued the current system makes it difficult to expand transit to where it is needed — and unfair to old-city residents who shoulder the brunt of HSR budget increases.

It’s the kind of conundrum that has split council along urban-suburban lines in the past — with retiring Ancaster councillor Lloyd Ferguson, for example, at one point threatening to withdraw his support for LRT if council changed transit taxes in a way that hurt his ward residents.

Where do the Mayoral candidates stand? Keanin Loomis: Proposes phasing out area-rated transit taxes “over time,” in tandem with plans for expanded service;  Andrea Horwath: Says transit must expand to all suburban communities but says any changes to area-rated taxes must happen in tandem with improved service. Has not suggested a timeline for changes; Bob Bratina: Calls ending area-rated transit a “tax grab” but wants to experiment with alternative transit like on-demand service in suburbs. (The Hamilton Spectator) 

 

Wednesday May 10, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday May 10, 2017

The Spectator’s view: A mayoral veto is just musing, but …

March 24, 2017

You had to know that when Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger used the word veto, hackles would be raised. Not all hackles equally, mind you. Reaction on social media was more mixed, with some actually seeing merit in the mayor’s observation. But in the minds of many — see today’s letters — Eisenberger may as well have suggested doing away with council entirely and running the show himself.

http://www.mackaycartoons.net/yahoo_files/2012/huh2012-01-12.html

January 12, 2012

Let’s be clear: the mayor was musing, no more. The province would have to change the municipal act to enable something like a veto, and there is no appetite for that. Eisenberger knows that and said as much.

He was trying to make a point, and it’s one worth discussing. Hamilton city council, like many others, is a dichotomy in many ways. You have 15 councillors who are elected by citizens of the ward they represent. Then you have the mayor, who is elected by the community at large. In that respect, the mayor has a mandate from the entire city, while councillors have a mandate from their ward constituents only.

March 10, 2011

Ward councillors justifiably feel great responsibility to respect the will of the people who elected them. They zealously guard the interests of their ward. That’s parochial politics, and it’s not always a bad thing. But what happens when what’s best for the city overall butts up against the interests of ward councillors?

LRT is an example. Councillors for the wards most heavily impacted by LRT construction and disruption are solidly behind the project because they see its overall benefit to their wards and eventually the city overall. Citizens in other wards don’t agree. They don’t see any direct benefit so don’t support the project. (Though it’s hard to fathom how some don’t see assessment growth and new commercial tax revenue as overall benefits.)

May 11, 2009

Another example: ward boundaries. Looking at the big picture, it’s hard to argue against redrawing boundaries so all citizens have roughly equitable representation. But such changes are trouble for ward-heeling councillors whose wards might have to change for the greater good. And so, we spent thousands on consultants, ignored their work and ended up kicking the can down the road.

Eisenberger’s point was that there must be a better way. Councillors elected at large instead of by ward? A mix of both? A board of control, or “executive committee” as its called in Toronto? A mayoral veto with appropriate checks and balances to prevent abuse?

October 14, 2003

As noted earlier, the discussion is academic. But maybe it shouldn’t be. The current system certainly has its share of drawbacks, although it generally works. But would it be so bad to study, perhaps even pilot, an experiment in doing local government differently? And why not in Hamilton, a city where challenges are overshadowed by ever-growing potential? (Source: Hamilton Spectator Editorial)

 

Wednesday October 29, 2014

Wednesday October 29, 2014Editorial cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday October 29, 2014

Where did you go, Hamilton voters?

Not good enough, Hamilton.

That was the consensus among disheartened democracy boosters after voter turnout plummeted to a record low of 34 per cent in Monday’s city election. By contrast, 60 per cent of eligible Toronto voters cast a ballot.

Thursday August 1, 2013Sure, Hamiltonians weren’t motivated by a world renowned mayoral soap opera — but we did have a three-way battle for the top job, four empty council seats and a polarizing LRT debate.

“People just aren’t interested,” said Larry Pomerantz, chair of the Hamilton Civic League which supported a People’s Platform resident engagement effort this election.

We’re not alone — cities throughout the GTA saw turnout under 40 per cent, with some, like Oshawa, even dropping to 26 per cent.

Pomerantz said the key is to convince residents it’s in their interest to join the civic debate. “Do we really want more voters, or more informed voters?”

Education is essential, says mayor-elect Fred Eisenberger. “Voting is a learned behaviour we need to instill in our children,” he said.

Eisenberger also argued that the city can make it easier to vote. He vowed to “aggressively” pursue online voting options, which the city will study in advance of the 2018 election.

Online voting helped Ajax reach its best turnout in decades — even if it was just 30 per cent.

Apathy letter to editorMunicipal Affairs Minister Ted McMeekin also said Tuesday Ontario is “committed to moving ahead” with offering a ranked ballot option to cities — and “quite possibly” a shorter campaign period.

Ranked ballots allow voters to list candidates by preference, with second choices used in a run-off until a candidate earns 50 per cent support.

While Hamilton’s election day had some snafus, they shouldn’t have kept voters away from the polls, said election manager Tony Fallis, who called the vote one of the smoothest he’s seen in the city.

Fallis received five complaints about electioneering at polling stations and a parking problem at a Flamborough school.

Councillor Judi Partridge said she also fielded complaints from upset voters who claimed the station opened late, leading to lineups.

Fallis said he was not aware of any delays in opening of any of the 209 polling stations. (Source: Hamilton Spectator)

 

Saturday October 18, 2014

Saturday October 18, 2014Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday October 18, 2014

What’s fair play in an election campaign?

The efforts of purported online hackers to “expose” a Ward 3 candidate as a Freemason just jumped to the top of a list of questionable campaign tactics in Hamilton.

It’s getting to be a long list.

Alleged mass destruction of Marie Robbins signs in Stoney Creek. An anonymous letter disputing how long Sandy Shaw has lived in Ward 1. A suspected “whisper campaign” about the health of mayoral candidate Brad Clark.

Mudslinging

Mudslinging

Clark, in turn, was accused of mudslinging after claiming candidate Fred Eisenberger misled the public by withholding rapid transit memos when he was last mayor. Clark then faced criticism when it was revealed he got the memos from outgoing Mayor Bob Bratina, not via a Freedom of Information request, as suggested by his campaign.

The difference between hardball tactics and dirty politics is often in the eye of the beholder, said political pundit Gerry Nicholls, known for creative attack ads during his time with the conservative National Citizens Coalition.

“Attack ads, brawling tactics … it’s kind of par for the course in elections,” said Nicholls, who fondly recalls skewering federal politicians using “farm animals and billboards.”

“Politics really is a blood sport. If you’re not ready for the rough stuff, maybe you’re not ready to run for office.”

Still, Nicholls said every candidate has to respect basic rules, such as libel law. “You don’t call someone a liar … You may hint at it, you may imply it,” he said. Also, do your research. A factually incorrect attack ad “can really come back and bite you.”

Clark rejects the characterization of his campaign as negative. He argued Thursday the vast majority of his announcements have been positive and added it’s fair to criticize the track record of opponents.

“There’s a difference between comparing performance and quite literally name calling,” said Clark in response to a Spectator question at a news conference on improving council relations.

The Stoney Creek councillor has indeed endured some notable barbs from mayoral competitors like Brian McHattie, who has called him “Machiavellian.”

Clark also recently held a news conference to address what he felt was a “whisper campaign” about his rheumatoid arthritis, which he said is in remission and has never interfered with his duties as councillor.

Hamilton Mayoral RaceShaw was irritated to learn about the anonymous pokes at her residency. The rookie candidate said she briefly lived outside the ward for family reasons but is back and has had a home in Ward 1 for 32 years. She describing the letter in field hockey terms: “like a crack at your ankles on a breakaway.”

Ward 3 candidate Matthew Green is the latest victim — or, possibly, beneficiary — of a political attack. A YouTube video ostensibly posted by the online collective of hackers Anonymous warns viewers the rookie candidate is a Freemason who moved his business to Ward 3 to “control” the neighbourhood.

Some online comments noted the video does a good job reminding viewers of Green’s activism and media plaudits for being a “young professional to watch.”

Green said he appreciates the shoutout, if not the “poor production values” and “tinfoil hat stuff.” He declined to say who he thinks is behind the video — but added it isn’t him.

“I don’t know, this election seems to have really brought out the kookiness in some people,” said the candidate, who described himself being “two-for-two” in unwanted election news after being accused of defamation following a heated exchange with a school board trustee.

“Maybe you haven’t arrived until someone makes an Anonymous video about you?” (Source: Hamilton Spectator)