Special Report: Walkable Streets

Opposition to Safe Streets Holding Up a Better Hamilton

Why is it so onerous that residents of the Downtown want to feel safe on the streets where we live, work, go to school, shop and play?

By Lee Edward McIlmoyle
Published February 24, 2015

Editor's note: Ward 8 Councillor Terry Whitehead and some other apologists for the transportation status quo in Hamilton have tried to argue that downtown activists calling for more complete, inclusive streets are like the activists who opposed the Red Hill Valley Parkway. This is a response to that line of reasoning. It started out as a comment but is published as an article with the author's permission.

Personally (and this is just my opinion; I have no statistical data to back up my claim), I believe anyone who ignores the fact that there is still intense traffic through the Downtown Core during rush hour fails to appreciate the irony of pushing all political opposition aside to force a massive road construction through a portion of land that functioned as the 'lungs' of the East End, cleaning polluted air and increasing the quality of life for many East End residents, only to see the problem of road congestion increase in the lower city.

Traffic is greatly reduced on the mountain? Good for you. But why is the lower city still enduring one-way roads and highway-speed traffic? Why is that even acceptable? Shouldn't all outer ward residents be using alternate routes like the RHVP and the LINC to avoid downtown traffic? Because that's not what we're seeing down here.

And all of this dispute over whether we should accept a fully Provincially-funded light rail transit (LRT) system should be a moot point. If mountain traffic is so greatly improved by two large stretches of multi-lane road, the entire city should be experiencing no substantive problems with traffic, and our interest in better transit measures should be academic.

Auto-Centric Planning

What the Friends of Red Hill were protesting wasn't just some pointless NIMBY argument about losing some trees, hiking paths and shifting waterways that most of the city never saw or used.

They were protesting the whole Robert Moses-style model of city building for the sake of Single Occupant Vehicles (SOVs) at the expense of pedestrian, community and quality of life concerns for the local residents, who clearly didn't have enough political capital to do more than slow the project at best, even with the Province's blessing and would see little immediate benefit to the addition of an expressway.

Ward 8 and the other outer wards get to weigh in on an LRT that doesn't directly affect them (yet), but East Enders who didn't want a highway driven through their neighbourhood were somehow out of touch, like old Cervantes?

And they weren't the only ones 'blessed' with this shortsighted philosophy. I live in Stinson now, where the Claremont Access has effectively driven a concrete wedge through our neighbourhood, dividing our community and greatly reducing our quality of life (i.e. Health Outcomes, as they like to say in Cityspeak).

Again, it is a Moses-style initiative of the late '50s/early '60s, when the RHVP plan was also originally hatched.

Status Quo a Proven Failure

What I'm saying is, this city-roads-are-for-cars-alone model is unsustainable. It's costing the City of Hamilton billions to maintain the course, money it simply hasn't got, but our decision makers refuse to back down from this model.

The current model is a decisively proven failure in urban dwelling development, as borne out by impoverished neighbourhoods (and one notably bankrupted major industrial city) all over North and South America.

Again, just because it's the accepted orthodox thinking of the last sixty-plus years doesn't mean it's accurate, and the results of staying the course this far have been detrimental, both to health outcomes throughout the lower city and, ironically enough, to the constant drain on the homeowner tax base.

A lack of clear vision and unified direction has been at the heart of the Downtown Core's deterioration, which we are working very hard to correct, make no mistake about it.

What We Need to Do

It is costing the outer wards more than they would like to admit to maintain the status quo than it would to simply apply the fixes we have been advocating for over the last four decades, to make the lower city as safe to live, work, play and shop in as the upper/outer wards currently enjoy, thanks in no small part to the enormous sums of tax dollars diverted away from lower city infrastructure to build and maintain the suburban/rural housing development boom.

It's not too much to ask, and there are all sorts of studies that support these measures:

These things are good and necessary for any city, including ours. It's not just a Shelbyville idea. This is not a con job. We need these changes and we need them now. Just because you drive doesn't mean this stuff won't make your life easier, too.

RHVP is now a very concrete reality, and the winners of the debate are typically rewriting history to suit their worldview, even as the net results are still being debated (though not as loudly as they were before the road went in, because hey, it's not like anyone can or even would remove it to give us back our creek, right?).

So bringing it up in this context is really just an effort to shut down the debate because the counter-argument isn't strong enough, but a little razzle-dazzle might win the day.

A Chance to Change

We have a chance to reshape Hamilton, to become a more commuter / passenger / pedestrian / cyclist-friendly city. But it's now the outer wards that are holding up the development of a better Hamilton, because the orthodox thinking of the last sixty years has conditioned us to believe that the way cars move around this city now is completely normal and should go unchallenged.

Other cities are proving us wrong, but we're standing with our hands clamped over our ears screaming 'La la la la la' at the top of our lungs to avoid having our opinions sullied with facts.

How many innocent lower city residents - children included - have to be nearly run down, or in some cases actually run down and killed, and how many traffic accidents at dangerous intersections on both one- and two-way thoroughfares have to happen before we all concede that real changes need to be made?

We need change: not just more polite nodding and pretty speeches that will be recanted later, when it's no longer politically expedient to approve plans that may inconvenience or otherwise change the commuting habits of drivers who want nothing more to do with the Downtown Core than to see it whizzing by as they speed home from work.

Bridging the Gap

I don't want to insult or drive a wedge between the wards or between drivers and bus users. While I do not drive (health reasons as much as financial ones), I have many close friends who do own cars and drive, as well as walk, cycle and bus across town.

Besides, that's already being done for me, quite ably by Council. I wish I knew a way to bridge the gap. But the answer clearly isn't for the Downtown Core to just roll over and take because we have been for the last forty years.

When is it going to be our turn to get the greenlight for some real, substantive improvements? This condo development boom we're seeing is not going to last, and it will definitely dry up and blow away if we don't put the right amenities into place for urban dwellers moving to Hamilton from other cities, where they're used to such things being a part of their livelihoods.

Can you comprehend the loss we will experience if they stay home and we left with a bunch of half-empty condo towers lining Main and King?

Wedge Politics

Why is it such a threat to SOV drivers to have to share the road we all paid for to be built? Why do some drivers act as if they believe buying a car entitles them to an inalienable, Dog-given right to dominate the road that the rest of us do not have?

Why is it so onerous that residents of the Downtown want to feel safe on the streets where we live, work, go to school, shop and play?

Why do we have to own a car before we're even allowed to debate the transit issue, and why are those who both drive, bus, cycle and/or walk being marginalized in this debate, as if there are too few of them to be worth considering?

This debate crosses all boundaries. If there's anything that is clear from the tenor of the debate, it's that there are a lot of groups being marginalized at the expense of the red herring wedge issue of 'upstanding community members vs the 'low income losers' and 'welfare cheats' who have no right to expect fair treatment in this City.

If we are residents, we all pay taxes, one way or another. We all have a right to expect fair treatment, regardless of race, creed, gender, or financial status: the seemingly invisible rich, the middle-to-upper-middle class strong wage earners, the retirees (comfortable or otherwise), the working poor, the starter home dwellers, and the impoverished apartment dwellers alike.

This prevalent and pervasive class warfare attitude is completely inappropriate and out of place. It should be rooted out like the weed it is, not enshrined and institutionalized in City Policy.

Lee Edward McIlmoyle writes fiction, songs and reviews. He designs commercial graphics and dabbles in creating comics and video games. You can visit his website.

42 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By notlloyd (registered) - website | Posted February 24, 2015 at 17:43:59

I think I can answer one of your questions. There are 9,245,267 licensed drivers in Ontario as of 2010. In 2010 there were 13,135,100 people living in Ontario. 2,190,300 were under the age of 14. That means that about 84% of the adult tax paying people drive. Just by sheer numbers they are going to "dominate."

So I guess it depends on what you mean by "we." We all may have paid for the roads, but even if the cost was evenly dispensed (as in each person paid the same amount - which it is not, drivers pay disproportionately higher taxes for road use) the 84% are going to have the largest say because the government usually responds to the biggest number.

Permalink | Context

By Dylan (registered) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 09:30:56 in reply to Comment 109679

The nature of our country and our under-funded and overpriced long distance mass transit options mean pretty well every adult needs a license. That doesn't mean members of that 85% don't have a vested interest in local public transit improvements and urban walk-ability.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted February 24, 2015 at 18:45:28 in reply to Comment 109679

84% of the adult tax paying people drive.

Hi! I have a valid driver's license and a clean history. In addition to being gainfully employed and paying my taxes, in fact, I moved somewhere where I pay more for property in order to have (more) complete streets. I choose to commute by bike and transit first, with car use on demand, maybe once a month or once a quarter to do larger cargo errands. Quick phone call and Enterprise comes to get me, and I just learned that Burlington has a car share so it's time to give that a try.

May I, humbly of course being one person, identify myself as one of the 84% that does not drive.

Already your assumptions are ripe for causing collateral damage to people who do not fit your assumptions. There are WAY too many assumptions being thrown around about how people think and live and want to live. Stop assuming that everyone with a driver's license wants things exactly the way they are. It just is not true and honestly, one of the few remaining human rights abuses in this country.

And just to add, I grew up pure stereotypical mountain life. Bought my first car very young, drove everywhere, taking the bus was for losers, et-cetera. It was the combination of traveling Europe, literally living in KevinLove's videos for a while, combined with the price shocks of 2004 and 2008, combined with the sardine-can QEW, lots of things - changed me at the core and redefined what is possible as far as quality of life.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2015-02-24 18:58:38

Permalink | Context

By notlloyd (registered) - website | Posted February 24, 2015 at 19:04:52 in reply to Comment 109687

Again, read my reply below. I am not saying it is right or wrong, just that drivers dominate the discussion because most people are drivers.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted February 24, 2015 at 19:23:27 in reply to Comment 109688

Absolutely, and I don't consider you one of the brainless parrots invoking the "silent majority" argument in the form I'm calling out against. My comment was for everyone to read, indeed.

Just another addendum - in the ward to which I moved, 90% of the people who turned out, voted in Mrs. Meed - a 8-80 walkability, complete streets, pro-cycling-infrastructure, greenspace and greenbelt protecting, responsible development advocating councilor. So although the population does indeed mostly drive, that does not automatically reflect the sampling of what those same constituents wish to see develop.

I am just making sure that this "silent majority" faux is fully explained and called out finally, because it gets repeated. My comment was aimed at the general audience, sorry for the phrasing. Communicating quickly yet effectively, by text over internet, is harder than it looks.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2015-02-24 19:38:42

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted February 24, 2015 at 17:57:32 in reply to Comment 109679

But ... municipal roads are funded out of property taxes (not gas taxes or license fees). And everyone pays property taxes, either directly or indirectly through rent, independent of how much they drive. So drivers do not pay "disproportionately more" for the urban roads we are discussing here.

In fact, as this article points out, if you don't drive, or don't drive very much, you are paying far more for your urban roads than you get in return.

And it is well-established that even all the fees paid by drivers do not cover the cost of building, maintaining and policing the roads. (Let alone the health care and other costs associated with collisions and pollution.)

But the other way of looking at this is that close to 100% of Ontario residents are pedestrians, every single day of their lives!

Why are they drivers first and pedestrians second (or not at all)? Why assume that most people who drive identify themselves primarily as "drivers"? Pedestrians are by far the "biggest number".

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-02-24 18:02:30

Permalink | Context

By Crispy (registered) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 13:01:46 in reply to Comment 109680

Actually $27,950M of the 2014 Roads capital budget was funded from Federal Gas tax. $27,783M for 2015.

Comment edited by Crispy on 2015-02-25 13:20:35

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 13:54:55 in reply to Comment 109719

I'd forgotten that the city was still using this money for roads, instead of "to support projects in environmental areas like wastewater treatment, public transit, and clean drinking water", which is what it is intended for.

The city should really be using this money for transit, but because the city's population was officially under 500,000 in 2001 when this program was introduced they use a loophole that allows them to spend it on roads (they have spent it on other capital expenditures like renovating City Hall in the past).

This is highly unusual, and really should stop:

"The federal website on the program reports that "in Canada's six largest cities, almost 90 per cent of the funding goes toward public transit.""

"But even the roads and bridges category has a requirement that the work "enhance sustainability outcomes", and the agreement requires municipalities to actually show and report publicly on how they do that."

https://www.raisethehammer.org/article/2...

Why will they not spend it on transit like the Federal government intended them to do? Especially when Dixon (HSR director) has pointedly stated that the HSR is drastically underfunded, even for current service levels, and is failing to make progress on any goals.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-02-25 13:57:11

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 13:12:06 in reply to Comment 109719

But at the end of the day 100% of the taxes are paid by 100% of the people (if corporations, at the end of the day by the shareholders who are people) so isn't the whole argument a red herring? As much as it might annoy us, we live in a country where you only get one vote even if you pay most of the tax. I get it that drivers pay a proportionately higher share of the costs of roads, as they should because they use them proportionately more. But that doesn't mean that they are any more important in a political context than as they are as a voting block. They "think they own the road" because they know that if they whine as a group, politicians will jump. If "drivers" become "engaged" the way RTH promotes it for "residents" I would watch out.

Permalink | Context

By wrong (anonymous) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 14:27:53 in reply to Comment 109721

Drivers do NOT pay a proportionately higher share of the costs of roads.

Your statement is false.

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 14:47:20 in reply to Comment 109724

No, your statement is false. They DO pay more taxes to use the roads. (I assume by capitalizing my response I have now won the argument.)

Comment edited by CharlesBall on 2015-02-25 14:48:35

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 15:33:44 in reply to Comment 109725

Again, it depends which roads you are talking about.

Apart from the roughly 25% of the municipal road budget coming from federal gas taxes (which are not really supposed to be spent on roads), the municipal road budget comes from property taxes, which are proportional to the value of property owned (or rented). 75% of the spending, even in Hamilton, is proportional to property value, not amount of driving (and Hamilton is a special case).

So, a non-driving person paying $6K in property taxes pays "disproportionately" more (about $500 towards roads) than a non-resident driver or a driver who doesn't own or rent their residence who drives only 4000km per year (which generates a total of only about $40 in excise tax, which must also pay for non-municipal roads). Interestingly, since apartment properties attract a much higher tax rate than non-rental (about 2.7 times), it is actually renters who pay disproportionately for our municipal roads, even though those who live in apartments are less likely to drive.

When we're talking about provincial and federal roads (essentially non-urban highways and freeways), then drivers do directly pay proportionally more than non-drivers, but still far less than the total cost of building and maintaining those roads. We mustn't forget that for goods and services the fuel tax (indeed all the transport cost) eventually gets passed onto the final consumer, who therefore pays for roads whether they drive or not.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-02-25 15:55:21

Permalink | Context

By wrong (anonymous) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 15:38:06 in reply to Comment 109726

And this ignores the externalities of excessive driving which tip the costs beyond direct driver taxation even at the provincial and federal level. So Charles, no, capitalizing it does not make you right.

Permalink | Context

By Wronger (anonymous) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 16:36:19 in reply to Comment 109727

This is one of the goofy fallacies promoted here. Drivers don;t pay all the costs of roads, but that does not mean that they don't pay more than other.

Let me do some arithmetic for you.

Say you have five people. Four drive. One doesn’t. (Assume the drivers all use the roads equally)
They all pay the same income and sales taxes. But the four drivers also pay a fee to use the roads. That fee covers 90% of the cost of the roads. That means that the non-driver pays 1/5 of 10% of the road costs or 2%. Sounds unfair. Why is he paying anything?

Say the roads contribute 25% to the economy. In other words, 25 percent of the income of each of the five is directly attributable to the existence of the roads. Each of the five pays 2% of the costs of the roads for a total of 10%. So they get 25% of their income each for2%. The drivers pay 90% of the balance through a fee but the fifth pays no more for the extra 23% of his income he derives from the roads.

Permalink | Context

By wrongest (anonymous) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 16:41:03 in reply to Comment 109728

your argument is predicated on this incorrect statement "That fee covers 90% of the cost of the roads."

If you are going to start talking abot roads as economic drivers then you need to also do the math for all the external costs which includes health care, policing, subsidies to automakers and oil companies, and then your math gets wronger yet.

Permalink | Context

By evenwrongerstill (anonymous) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 16:50:46 in reply to Comment 109729

You ignore that all drivers pay tax. So since the are over 84% of the population they pay that tax plus the fee. Do the math.

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 17:24:56 in reply to Comment 109730

The discussion is about taxes and fees associated with driving, taxes that wouldn't be collected if people didn't own cars, or drove less (and there is actually essentially no revenue, apart from paying $80 every five years, with simply holding a driver's license).

Income taxes, property taxes and HST would continue to be collected, even if no one drove.

But it is still true that many (although not all) drivers (people who are able to drive) do pay proportionately more for roads, even if the actual percentage more is quite small and the extra amount does not come close to the cost of driving to society. As I mentioned it is easy to find cases of a driver paying proportionally less for roads: just compare a driver who pays little property tax or income tax, with a wealthy non driver who pays very high property tax and income tax. The average driver does pay proportionately more than the average non driver.

If you are talking about "drivers" as "people holding licenses" then almost every adult is a driver, but the relevant point is how many km and where and when they drive in terms of the benefit they derive and the costs they impose on society. For example, I have held a driver's license for 28 years, but didn't own a car for much of that time (I just rented a car when I needed one). That is very different from someone commuting 150km every day of the week ... 40,000km per year).

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-02-25 17:37:52

Permalink | Context

By thankyou (anonymous) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 17:40:21 in reply to Comment 109731

The only tax tied to the amount of driving is gas tax, and our gas tax rates are way too low to cover just the roads let alone the externalities such as health care.

When it comes to municipal roads, they are funded almost entirely through property taxes which have nothing to do with driving.

We can fight all day about who pays for the 401 and who should pay, but in a city that can only cover a portion of road costs every year, with mounting deficits as a result, it is completely incorrect to claim drivers are paying more than their fair share.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted February 25, 2015 at 13:04:54 in reply to Comment 109719

Is that the same gas-tax money that's earmarked for "green infrastructure"?

https://www.raisethehammer.org/article/2...

Permalink | Context

By notlloyd (registered) - website | Posted February 24, 2015 at 18:18:59 in reply to Comment 109680

I am not making any value judgements. I am just trying to answer his question as to why drivers dominate the discussion. Assuming the proportion remains the same on a municipal level, then 84% of tax paying municipal residents drive. So I would not change my answer.

If you do not drive, you receive food from trucks, or services from people who drive to get to work, etc. etc. You cannot remove yourself from the economy so even if you do not drive, you derive a benefit from the roads.

So 84% of the people pay at least 84% of the costs of the municipal roads (they in fact pay more than 84% because of transfer payments from the province to the municipalities.) That is why they dominate the discussion.

100% of people are pedestrians, but 100% of people do not use the roads in the same proportion. The 84% use the roads far more often as drivers than as pedestrians. That is probably why they hold the ideas that they do.

Permalink | Context

By LeeEdwardMcIlmoyle (registered) - website | Posted February 27, 2015 at 11:54:16 in reply to Comment 109683

I agree with you, notlloyd. Everybody knows that drivers dominate the conversation on road use in Hamilton (and have for over forty years), and that the numbers of licensed drivers support this line of logic. It's a skewed stat, but when you're looking for metrics, it's a pretty compelling one. The problem is, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that leads to a dead end. Rethinking is in order, despite how the numbers may look.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted February 24, 2015 at 18:16:17

Similarly, about 70% of Canadian households own at least one bike, which is also a "big number". Even the CAA now has services for cyclists, recognizing their members are not just "drivers". http://www.caasco.com/Auto/Roadside-Serv...

Permalink | Context

By Crispy (registered) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 09:32:00 in reply to Comment 109681

Does that 70% include toddlers with tricycles? Much like many people own a guitar or a piano, it doesn't make them a musician: just because a household owns a bike, doesn't mean anyone in the home is a cyclist.

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 10:48:51 in reply to Comment 109709

Exactly my point. This is just to counter the argument that everyone with a driver's license must be driving a lot and prefer driving over walking, cycling or transit.

Permalink | Context

By Dylan (registered) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 10:30:16 in reply to Comment 109709

Nor does having a drivers license necessarily mean that driving is your primary means of transportation. Even if it was, it's not a useful stat in determining who does and does not support complete streets.

99% of Hamiltonians have used a sidewalk more than once in the last month, therefore, 99% of Hamiltonians support complete streets initiatives. Right?

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted February 25, 2015 at 10:25:23 in reply to Comment 109709

Exactly the point. Just because someone has a license doesn't mean they drive every day, or every week, or even every month. And even if they do drive every day, it doesn't mean they prefer to. It doesn't mean they don't want other options. Especially if they went out of their way to live in a dense urban neighbourhood.

So if politicians are taking the "number of licensed drivers" stat at face value, they are not going about it the right way.

Permalink | Context

By notlloyd (registered) - website | Posted February 24, 2015 at 18:23:27 in reply to Comment 109681

In my house we have two cars and twelve bikes.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted February 24, 2015 at 20:01:12

..it's not like anyone can or even would remove it to give us back our creek, right?.

Except when they do just that. For example, in Seoul, South Korea, where a downtown expressway was removed to restore the Cheonggyecheon River.

Or these 13 other examples of freeway removal.

Comment edited by KevinLove on 2015-02-24 20:01:51

Permalink | Context

By JeffRintjema (registered) | Posted February 26, 2015 at 18:13:08 in reply to Comment 109693

It could happen here. Many of the removed freeways were elevated. The elevated sections of Burlington Street could be removed.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted February 24, 2015 at 20:43:37

This condo development boom we're seeing is not going to last, and it will definitely dry up and blow away if we don't put the right amenities into place for urban dwellers moving to Hamilton from other cities, where they're used to such things being a part of their livelihoods.

Can you comprehend the loss we will experience if they stay home and we left with a bunch of half-empty condo towers lining Main and King?

Already loud rumblings of this. One developer recently told city hall he's having people love the units but not fathom living with Main/King as their front door. Another developer owns property on Main West and wants to do condos, but wants one less lane on Main for wider sidewalks or bike lanes.
He might want to invest in another city that cares.

I have family who looked at a unit in Vranich-ville and LOVED it. But live between two highways? No thanks.

City Hall will prematurely kill the condo boom by clinging to these dangerous, outdated streets. And then blame some other phoney excuse as to why the boom suddenly dried up, when the answer lies in the mirror.

Comment edited by jason on 2015-02-24 20:43:52

Permalink | Context

By Dylan (registered) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 19:37:05 in reply to Comment 109696

I work in the condo construction industry and, seeing the potential of the city and the downtown, bought a house between Main and King just east of the core.

There are such great prospects to radically alter the downtown for the better. But we need to market the city to developers, and i don't mean a promotional video. I too worry this opportunity will be squandered.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted February 25, 2015 at 22:48:17 in reply to Comment 109736

I've lived here my whole life.

Hamilton is Canada's leading producer of wasted potential. Always has been, and likely always will be.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 26, 2015 at 10:13:15 in reply to Comment 109740

sadly, I concur. New residents are just starting to learn why we've stagnated the past 40 years. Intentional lack of leadership.

Permalink | Context

By Dylan (registered) | Posted February 26, 2015 at 19:08:24 in reply to Comment 109744

Have the stars ever aligned like they are now for THIS degree of opportunity? I ask out of sheer ignorance.

Housing costs have skyrocketed throughout the GTA up to Burlington, with Hamilton being the last bastion of undervalued prices. We have a generation that's incredibly well educated that is entering family rearing age that can not afford houses anywhere near Toronto Proper. McMaster is opening new campuses downtown. The province is going to hand us nearly a billion bucks for LRT. Commuting to and from Toronto is finally feasible and in the summer a new station will open. Finally, and this is nothing new , Hamilton distinguishes itself from the 'burgs' of Toronto in that it has it's own increasingly vibrant downtown.

Maybe it's because I'm a newby, but I feel like there is a culmination of events here.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted February 26, 2015 at 19:45:17 in reply to Comment 109766

This is how Hamilton used to look:

img

There is no opportunity that we will not squander.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2015-02-26 19:46:17

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted February 24, 2015 at 21:26:34 in reply to Comment 109696

Living between two highways like Main and King is bad for your social life as well as bad for your health.

Who would not prefer to live somewhere like here? Or here?

Comment edited by KevinLove on 2015-02-24 21:27:55

Permalink | Context

By H1 (anonymous) | Posted February 27, 2015 at 13:19:30 in reply to Comment 109698

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By Idea Man (anonymous) | Posted February 27, 2015 at 13:22:39 in reply to Comment 109789

Yeah that sounds like a real solution.

And how exactly do you attract people to live next to these streets?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By fmurray (registered) | Posted February 25, 2015 at 22:44:02

Great article, Lee.

The comments went a little bit off the rails with arguments about who pays the most in taxes/fees, but your arguments, your plea for sanity, was well-written. There's a chasm, and it has to be bridged.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds