|
Democracy?
Democracy
and the Environment in Hamilton-Wentworth
Published
in Ecolutions, Winter 1994/95
Democracy,
or more precisely the lack of it, is at the very heart of
the environmental difficulties facing Hamilton-Wentworth.
All too frequently the Regional Council has slammed the
door to any public role in local decision-making.
A
recent example unfolded around David Crombie's attempts
to resolve the Red Hill Expressway dispute. Premier Rae
presented Crombie's $191 million package to a special meeting
of Regional Council on March 2nd and was promised a response
in 30-45 days. It took 140 days for the region to say no,
but the main feature was the careful exclusion of the public.
In
addition to the bid to solve the main environmental dispute
in the region, the provincial proposals also included some
$40 million in environmental projects, including a Green
Communities Initiative ($1.5 million), a venture capital
fund for Green Industries ($10 million), a World Biosphere
interpretative centre focused on the Niagara Escarpment
($6 million), environmental restoration work in Red Hill
Creek ($12 million), walking and cycling trails in the region
($3.2 million), and the establishment in Hamilton of both
the regional office of the Ontario Clean Water Agency and
a branch of the United Nations University focused on environmental
issues.
The
regional government has an Environmental Services Committee
composed of councillors and a Regional Environmental Advisory
Committee composed mainly of citizens. Neither was asked
to comment on the provincial proposals! The only committee
they went to was the Transportation Services Committee (TSC)
who handed them on to staff and consultants. From this point
on, the only aspect of the proposals that received any attention
was the Red Hill roadway. In May several community groups,
including those representing the Woodward Avenue community,
attempted to present their views to TSC. It refused to hear
them. On June 13, the staff and consultants reported back
to Transportation Services in a six-hour meeting. Their
verbal presentation was not accompanied with a written report.
TSC decided unanimously to reject the provincial proposals
and forward their decision to the full Regional Council.
Two
days AFTER TSC's decision, the first of three "open houses"
were held featuring a complex series of maps on four separate
roadway proposals. No written report on the proposals was
provided for the public to respond to.
On
June 21, TSC's motion came to Regional Council. Numerous
councillors were in favour of adopting it, but a decision
was eventually taken to table it because councillors still
had not received a written report from the staff and consultants.
Two
days LATER, the public got its FIRST chance to respond to
the provincial proposals. Thirty-four submissions were made
on June 15th, and 25 more on July 7th. Each speaker was
alloted five minutes. However, they were only heard by the
Transportation Services Committee. At no time were more
than 10 of the Region's 28 councillors in attendance at
the public submissions and often this number was five or
less. No minutes were taken, so absent councillors could
have no way of knowing what was said. Some speakers handed
in written submissions but these were not included in the
TSC minutes "due to bulk" and councillors who wanted to
see them had to make a special trip to the office of the
Regional Clerk. It's a safe bet that none did.
On
Friday July 8th, the day after the public submissions concluded,
the Commissioner of Transportation/Environmental Services,
Dale Turvey, sent a report to TSC proposing an entirely
new road alignment. No information was included from the
59 public submissions! The new road was made public in the
July 11th Hamilton Spectator. That morning, before
most residents had even heard about the new proposal, it
was adopted by TSC. At that meeting, the first written report
from the staff and consultants was finally released. The
Hamilton Spectator endorsed the new alignment the
following day, and it passed Regional Council one week later
by a vote of 21-5. To this day, the public has never been
asked to comment on this new expressway through Hamilton's
largest park!
The
fundamental message from the Council to the public throughout
this process was: "we don't give a damn what you think!"
The public was denied any opportunity to affect the Region's
position. No consultation was carried out until after TSC
had made their decision, and what took place then was farcical.
Since no minutes were kept, the 59 groups and individuals
who prepared submissions wasted their time. Then to top
it all off, regional staff fabricated, and TSC and Regional
Council adopted, an entirely new proposal that none of them
even thought to ask the public about! Incredibly, no written
reports on anything except the province's proposal were
made available until the decision had been made! Even within
the formal governmental structure itself, any opportunity
for citizens to express their views was carefully denied.
A 600-member local volunteer group sent letters to each
councillor asking them to provide their views for publication
in the group's newsletter. Six of the 28 councillors bothered
to respond!
Unfortunately,
there is nothing unusual about this. Rather, it appears
to be the norm. At the present time, a regional transportation
study is underway. Two public meetings were held (in December
1993 and March 1994). The public was shown a complex set
of drawings but provided no written report. In addition,
no minutes were taken of the comments made by citizens at
the meetings.
The
history of the Regional Advisory Environmental Committee
(REAC) is in the same mold. In the first place, it took
several months of lobbying at the beginning of the last
council's term of office to even have the citizens' body
re-established. Subsequently, the Environmental Services
Committee, to which it reported, made it abundantly clear
that they didn't want REAC's advice. Major environmental
issues were never referred to REAC, including the scheme
to privatize the Sewage Treatment facilities, the plan to
sell space in the regional landfill to private companies,
the cancellation of the Main and King bicycle lanes, and,
of course, anything to do with the Red Hill Expressway or
the other provincial proposals.
Hamilton-Wentworth
has recently been given two environmental awards - the Model
City designation by the International Council on Local Environmental
Initiatives and the December's Environment Canada award.
In both cases the Remedial Action Plan and the Vision 2020
exercise were cited as the primary reason for singling out
Hamilton-Wentworth, and in both cases the main stress was
placed on the inclusion of the public in these two processes.
Unfortunately, they apparently are the only two times this
has ever happened. The regional council had almost nothing
to do with the first process, and doesn't seem particularly
interested in implementing the recommendations of the second.
Until it dramatically changes its attitude to public input,
we needn't expect anything environmentally positive from
OUR regional council.
Don McLean
October
5, 2002
HAMILTON HAS ABUSED RED HILL CONSULTATION
Letter-to-Editor in Spectator re:'Di Ianni defends
lack of Red Hill Creek reports' (Oct. 1).
While
Hamilton Councillor Larry Di Ianni quite accurately
describes the Red Hill Creek Expressway project as
very complex, requiring an "iterative" approach,
this in no way requires a three-year delay in the
release of completed documents, nor a four-year delay
in responding to invited comments.
My
own involvement with this project began in 1998. As
a field botanist, I was asked by the city to sit on
a panel reviewing ecological remediation options for
the expressway proposal. And I was asked to submit
comments through the public consultation process.
My comments were based primarily on a review of existing
reports made available by the city. My area of expertise
is in ecology, and the ecological studies conducted
on behalf of the city are, in fact, quite strong.
However, I found that the expressway proposal did
not accurately reflect all the negative impacts presented
in the ecological studies, and I made this clear in
the comments I submitted. That was four years ago.
Despite being promised a response within three months,
I have heard nothing from the city.
Di
Ianni explains this delay as being the result of the
lengthy court proceedings that the city instigated.
However,
the city had six months to respond to my comments
prior to the court case, and has had eight months
since the end of the case. In total, excluding time
spent in court, there has been a full year without
a single response from the city on comments submitted
four years ago.
I
was not paid for my comments; my participation on
the panel was at the invitation of the city, and my
time was given out of professional interest.
As
a matter of professional courtesy, I would expect
a response to my efforts within the timeline set out
by the city. This is even more troublesome when one
considers that the public consultation process was
initiated as an alternative to an environmental assessment.
If the city cannot maintain its obligations regarding
public consultation, then we should abandon this flawed
process and return to a standard environmental assessment.
Di
Ianni would explain away all the delay as part of
a complex democratic process. This is nonsense. Democracy
requires transparency. We cannot hold our elected
representatives accountable for their decisions if
they won't tell us what they've been deciding.
It
should also be mentioned that further review of the
expressway proposal has been curtailed by the city's
refusal to release completed documents relating to
the project. According to Di Ianni, this is because
one report will have to be altered to account for
the results of other reports, and so on and so forth,
so that documents completed in 1998 can't reasonably
be expected to be released within four years. Once
a document is completed, the consultant paid, and
the results shared among project planners, that document
cannot be changed. Imagine the mess our libraries
would be in if this were common practice: With every
advance in science or history or art, all the old
books would have to be collected, revised, and re-released.
Thankfully, this is not what happens. When significantly
new information on a topic comes to light, it's time
to publish a new book.
It's
time that the city stopped revising the books and
started shedding some light on the Red Hill Creek
Expressway proposal. Dumping four years of research
on the table at once and allowing only 45 days for
review is not a show of good faith. Research should
be made available as soon as it is completed, and
reasonable time allotted for full review. If this
is too much to ask, then it's time to call in the
professionals and have a proper environmental assessment.
Tyler
Smith, Montreal
October
2, 2002
CITY TRIES TO JUSTIFY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC PRACTICES
Tuesday’s
Hamilton Spectator carried a long piece by
councillor Larry DiIanni that attempted to defend
the secrecy surrounding public documents related to
the Red Hill Creek expressway.
Mr.
DiIanni only mentioned a small portion of the missing
documents, and was unconvincing even on that limited
defence.
The
following items are being kept secret, but are not addressed
in Mr. DiIanni’s essay:
-
a
detailed explanation of how David Estrin and his
law firm have spent over $3 million of our taxes
since May 1999 (originally requested in 2000 by
the Spectator through Freedom of Information).
-
at
least two studies costing $90,000 on the nationally
vulnerable Southern Flying Squirrels that live in
Red Hill Valley. One report was done in 1999 and
one in 2000. They were denied to a regional councillor
in 2000, and to subsequent Freedom of Information
requests by the Spectator, Brabant Newspapers and
at least one individual.
-
the results of over $400,000 in archaeological studies
in the valley since April of 1998, including an
11,000 year-old Paleo-Indian site and a Middle Woodlands
Iroquoian village. The secret studies include an
"Archaeological Assessment of the Red Hill
Creek Watershed" and a "Cultural Heritage
Resource Assessment", both completed earlier
this year. Freedom of Information requests by an
individual and the Spectator for archaeological
reports were rejected by the City early this year.
-
a report prepared prior to July 1998 that predicts
traffic flows on the expressway and adjacent streets,
including the numbers of heavy trucks.
-
a
"Niagara Escarpment Expressway Crossing Alternative
Designs Report" completed in February 1999
and referenced in a study released last week.
-
a
"Terrestrial Resources Impact Assessment Draft
Final Technical Report" completed in December
1999 and referenced in a study released last week.
-
a
report on the "Escarpment Crossing Visual Assessment.
Final Technical Draft Report" completed earlier
this year and referenced in a study released last
week.
-
responses
to more than fifteen individuals and organizations
who submitted written comments to in October 1998
about some studies released in August 1998. City
staff promised to provide written responses no later
than January 1999.
-
the
final versions of 13 reports released in draft version
in August 1998.
-
a
number or reports now promised for release sometime
in October.
Mr.
DiIanni only addresses #8 and #9. He argues that the complexities
of the project make it impossible to provide these until
sometime next year. He doesn’t mention that municipal
staff promised to provide the responses to both the authors
and the Spectator by no later than January 1999.
Mr.DiIanni says this hasn’t occurred because "from
1999 to 2002, the city was in a lawsuit". He doesn’t
mention that the lawsuit was initiated by the City itself,
and that it didn’t begin until August 1999, six months
after these responses were promised. He also doesn’t
mention that the court proceedings ended nearly nine months
ago on January 15, 2002. He now says these reports and
responses can’t be released until after nine new
reports are released and commented on. He doesn’t
explain why that "problem" wasn’t considered
in 1998 when responses were promised within three months.
Finally,
he says the public will have only 45 days to comment on
the new reports being released in October (and apparently
no opportunity to comment on those that won’t be
released until "early next year"). We have seen
two of these reports. One is 560 pages and appears to
be a combination of four required studies. The other is
well over 200 pages. They are technical reports that can
only be reviewed effectively by technical experts. The
reports have taken 4-5 years to produce. It is absurd
to suggest that a proper review can be done in 45 days.
This would be impossible even if only one report were
released at a time (instead of the nine planned). Both
reports were given to the federal Fisheries department
in July but not released to Friends of Red Hill until
September 25. Fisheries is still reviewing them, and likely
will be doing so for a lot longer than 45 days.
For
a citizen’s group to obtain a technical review, we
would need to read the document and then advertise for
a technical expert. The tendering process used by the
City (on the rare occasions when they bother to tender
contracts related to Red Hill) takes more than 45 days
in itself. Thus the deadline imposed by the City is a
cruel joke, a caricature of ‘public consultation’.
Mr.
DiIanni’s essay really sheds light on only one thing
— that he is feeling quite embarrassed by the City’s
anti-democratic behaviour, but still hopes to fool enough
people to be able to continue these practices. Friends
of democracy in Hamilton should turn up the pressure.
One
of the most striking aspects of this situation is the
utter silence of the other eleven councillors who support
the expressway. They apparently understand that the expression
of even the slightest doubts about anything to do with
the expressway will be viewed as disloyalty to The Expressway
Party and will be subject to some terrible punishment
that we can only guess at. In their silence they are fully
complicit in the anti-democratic activities of the City.
They should each be fiercely challenged on this. We suggest
you do this in writing and we ask that you share any responses
you receive with Friends of Red Hill Valley.
September
26, 2002
MORE SECRECY AND DECEIT
Friends
of Red Hill’s presentation to City Council yesterday
(September 25) had mixed results. The acting mayor (Larry
DiIanni) promised transparency and openness, and the bureaucrat
in charge of the expressway said City reports will be
released — some in October and the rest in January.
The bureaucrat provided a very general list (missing titles
and authors). In addition, three actual reports were released
which had been filed in July with the federal fisheries
department. Most of the remaining material remains secret,
but we now have additional evidence of the so-called ‘transparency
and openness’ of the City.
First
the scorecard from yesterday’s requests:
-
how did Estrin and company spend over $3 million —
City officials refused to even comment on this and it
appears certain they will never willingly provide this
information
-
flying squirrel studies — City says they will be
released in mid-October. We know that the first was
completed in 1999 and the second has been "ready
for months".
-
archaeological
reports — City says some material will be released
"early next year" (see below)
-
fish
report — document released yesterday (completed
in June)
-
creek
re-location report — document released yesterday
(completed in May)
-
stormwater
and surface water quality report — document released
yesterday (completed in June)
-
economic
impact assessment — no mention of the existence
of this required report
-
responses
to October 1998 citizen comments — no formal commitment,
but certainly not before "early next year"
A
quick review of the three reports obtained yesterday
turned up bibliographic references to five additional
reports that have been completed, but not released.
These are:
-
Niagara Escarpment Expressway Crossing Alternative Designs
Report, February 1999
-
Terrestrial
Resources Impact Assessment Draft Final Technical Report,
December 1999
-
Escarpment
Crossing Visual Assessment. Final Technical Draft Report,
2002
-
Archaeological
Assessment of the Red Hill Creek Watershed, Williamson,
2002
-
Cultural
Heritage Resource Assessment, by McPhail, Cumming, 2002
No
more than one of these five reports are scheduled
for release in mid-October. The others might be included
in the "early next year" category. This
confirms that the City is continuing to hide many
public documents related to the expressway project.
Even the dates on the three reports released yesterday
shows they have been completed for three to four months
without being made available to the public.
Part
of the City strategy in doing this came out clearly
yesterday when City officials said that the public
will only be allowed 30 days to comment on the reports
scheduled for release in October. The scheme is apparently
to flood expressway opponents with a big pile of technical
reports within a very short time frame. Nearly all
of the most significant reports won’t see the
light of day until "early next year", perhaps
only weeks before construction is scheduled to begin
in the spring. The honest procedure would be to release
each report as it becomes available, but that would
then allow citizens time to review them, and the City
clearly doesn’t want that to happen.
The
main result of yesterday’s response from the
City is further proof that they are playing "dirty
pool" in a desperate attempt to push through
the expressway with secrecy and deceit.
|
