|
February
1, 2004
WHAT IS WRONG IN HAMILTON?
Economic
reality is forcing the fate of Red Hill Valley back onto
the agenda. Despite the massive tree cutting that has taken
place, the road is still far from certain. Stelco’s
move into bankruptcy is only the latest in a string of economic
disasters battering Hamilton. The steel plant pays over
$10 million in property taxes to the City. The impacts on
its workers and pensioners and the spinoff effects on other
parts of Hamilton’s economy pose a much greater challenge
to the community, and also call into question Mayor DiIanni’s
attempts to pave the valley.
It’s
now obvious, to all but those who don’t want to know,
that Hamilton can’t afford the $200 million road, even
if it made some sense (which it doesn’t). The economic
theory underpinning the project is unravelling at an amazing
speed. The City is facing a massive budget deficit, plus
the rapidly growing inability of its people to pay more
taxes or suffer more service cuts and fee increases. The
question of the day has become: “how did we get into
such a mess?”
The
January 7 city budget presentation provided some clues.
It included some interesting economic statistics such as
that housing starts took a steep dive in Hamilton, falling
from a record 2291 in 2002, down to 1610 last year, the
lowest level since 1996. The value of commercial building
permits also dropped dramatically, to their lowest level
in a decade. But both institutional and industrial construction
climbed to new highs.
What
does this mean? Is it good news or bad for Hamilton? It’s
a little difficult to tell from the city budget documents
because these figures were the ONLY economic indicators
provided. There was nothing about the unemployment rate,
household incomes, number of homeless, average home prices,
cost of living, etc.
And
that’s the real revelation in the budget. When in comes
to the local economy, the City apparently thinks new construction
is the only thing that matters.
The
budget tells us how many NEW houses were built, but nothing
about how many existing homes were renovated, nor anything
about how many older homes were abandoned as no longer liveable.
New malls and new big boxes are deemed important, but not
the number of stores that went bankrupt or the number of
commercial units now sitting empty.
The
local elite is dominated by developers and focused on new
growth. They measure the progress of the community by this
yardstick, and this yardstick alone. Consequently, the majority
of councillors are dedicated to more sprawl. The successful
paving of farmer’s fields is carefully noted, but not
the loss of productive agricultural lands. The kilometres
of new or expanded roads are celebrated, while the continued
deterioration of existing roads merits little attention.
Major energies are expended chasing international sporting
events in hopes of new stadiums, arenas and swimming pools,
while quiet decisions are made to sell ‘excess’
existing facilities and put off repairing others.
Is
it any wonder that our older neighbourhoods and business
districts are sliding deeper into decay? While City Council
chases construction jobs in the outskirts, 28% of Hamilton’s
workforce is now employed outside the city, mainly in the
Toronto area. Among those who aren’t, more than 100,000
city residents (22%) live below the poverty line.
A
February 2000 study reported over 4000 empty commercial
units in Hamilton. The immediate response of councillors
was to expand the urban boundary south of Rymal Road to
accommodate a “Meadowlands East” commercial complex.
Two big boxes for this location were approved early last
summer.
This
exposes a fundamental problem in Hamilton, and the real
source of the budget crisis at City Hall, and the deepening
economic and social malaise in the community. The myopia
at City Hall appears just as deeply engrained in the local
media. Most of the city councillors seem almost oblivious
to the decay swirling around them. Their stated number one
budget priority for 2004 is: “Continue to foster and
encourage economic growth and improved competitiveness through
the Business Tax Reduction plan and strategic infrastructure
investments”. The latter refers to the Red Hill Creek
Expressway, and spending tax money on the dream of new development
around the airport.
That’s
why the recent unravelling of the “aerotropolis”
dream has generated so much political concern. The shift
of 79 jobs away from the Hamilton airport galvanized Mayor
DiIanni to demand a “summit meeting” of all three
levels of government.
Do
you recall a summit when 1260 jobs disappeared completely
last October at Camco and Levi’s? Have the mayor and
local MPPs been losing sleep as the fate of Slater Steel
hangs by a thread? Even the Stelco crash has not generated
any practical response from the mayor’s office. But
79 jobs at the airport move to Toronto and heaven and earth
begin to shake at City Hall.
The
response would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad.
February
1, 2004
COUNCILLORS McHATTIE AND BRADEN ARGUE AGAINST EXPRESSWAY
Report
prepared by CATCH (Citizens at City Hall)
The
financial feasibility of the Red Hill Creek Expressway is
again being debated at City Hall. Councillors Brian McHattie
(ward 1) and Dave Braden (Flamborough) challenged the road
at a committee meeting on Friday (January 30) where it was
revealed that the City plans to issue $90 million in contracts
this year for the expressway. Actual spending on the project
in 2004 is expected to be $35 million but contractual commitments
will be nearly three times this amount. This includes contracts
for 100% of the road grading and 75% of the creek realignment.
McHattie
suggested that the financial picture for Hamilton has changed
dramatically in the past month, noting that “the world
is a different place with the Stelco announcement yesterday,
Levi Strauss disappearing, Camco disappearing, Slater Steel,
WestJet, etc.” He asked for a consolidated straightforward
and accurate report on the full costs of the project including
operations, maintenance and eventual reconstruction.
Councillor
Braden noted that the City is currently “spending an
extra half million dollars per day, each and every day,
more than we’re taking in” and that “the
similarity between this corporation and Stelco should be
clear to everybody”. He also revealed that “senior
staff members now are saying to us all, privately and confidentially,
we can’t afford almost any project in the capital budget,
and they’re naming this project as one we can’t
afford.”
Braden
called the current economic development policy of the city
“confused”, noting that the City’s director
of economic developments says Hamilton has only “a
ten-year window of opportunity” to develop lands around
the airport and in the North Glanbrook Business Park, but
that those lands are not even scheduled to be serviced before
2007-2008. These lands are supposed to provide 65% of new
employment in Hamilton, but all the economic development
monies are being poured into the expressway instead.
In
other revelations, employment costs for the 6.5 positions
in the expressway office are climbing 17.9% from $368,405
to $495,730. Project manager Chris Murray said this was
from merit pay increases and the recalculation of one employee’s
salary. Murray predicted that “legal and security costs”
would rise in 2005 “in order to address matters that
get raised from time to time by people who don’t support
the project” which he said “will probably continue
on as this project moves forward.” Murray also said
a new report on tolling the roadway will be presented before
the end of March.
|
