Over at My Stoney Creek, I posted an article dealing with an area of discussion about our city that I feel is vital.
Beyond the issues themselves, the real question is: 'Who's going to shine a light on this stuff?'
I cannot imagine The Spec leading the way, because they've set their tone with the 'Code Red' series.
I also can't imagine The City leading the way, because there seems to be too much intertwining of effort for there with non-profits to be authentic discussion coming from them. (I could be wrong, I'd love to have it proved so.)
What are the odds that we'll get something pushed along by CHCH, CHML or Cable 14? Something that strips away the usual veneer that such subjects are usually coated with?
Moreover, do you suppose that councillors will put it all on the line and promote the kind of dialogue amongst their constituents that will question the current state of affairs in the areas I noted in the editorial? Who amongst them has a sufficient enough grasp of both the big picture and the nuances of Hamilton's social services profile, who's on Council who will take a stand, who will push the discussion forward, understanding that there are some uncomfortable moments certain to unfold?
It's my opinion that in the end, we're the only ones who can do the pushing. Online entities such as Raise the Hammer and The Hamiltonian as well as various social media can assist us, but we simply cannot look to agencies (both municipal and non-profit) nor to our conventional media to be the mainstays; the water is simply too muddy, and with people clamouring for 'transparency' and 'accountability', I hardly think we're going to find much of them through the murkiness that collaboration and comisseration brings about.
And yet we muzzle ourselves. Mostly because nobody cares to take the time to make important issues as mentioned in the MSC article the stuff of engagement, of interplay, of discourse.
Last auturmn, following our inaugural town hall with Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr, I noted this:
"...you don’t dive into substantive, contentious issues in the hope that you can generate civic engagement. You generate civic engagement so that you’re better equipped to address substantive, contentious issues when they begin to unfold."
M Adrian Brassington
Well, I've read your piece on MSC and Mahesh's lengthy essay, and I'm still confused, but in a different way. Is that progress?
ReplyDeleteA couple of comments.
I remember when the radial separation bylaw was brought in. Very shortly after it came into force, it was challenged by the development now under construction at King and Pearl. Since the proposal was to reduce the separation from 300 meters to the thickness of a concrete block, and to eliminate a green space, there was opposition. I attended a town hall of sorts in the council chambers at which many residents of that neighbourhood spoke against the proposal, and a number of social service providers argued for it. (Not all the neighbours were opposed, by the way, but most were.) Council approved the project, obviously.
The maps which Mahesh provides in his post are helpful. I'm afraid I don't see much difference between the Charlton location and the Augusta. I suppose the Corktown people regard James as a barrier. I don't know what existing social services facility lies within 300 meters of the Augusta site. Perhaps I have not read attentively enough. My impression -- and it is only that - is that Corktown is light on these facilities, owing to the absence of large houses like the ones in Durand and Strathcona that lend themselves to rooming house style conversions. I wonder what the inventory of these facilities is in Durand. I know that a high school friend of mine who became extremely bipolar used to pass through some sort of halfway house in Durand, but that was years ago. Perhaps those places no longer exist up there.
Just in terms of intensification: conversion of Charlton to other residential uses, plus conversion of Augusta to residential, would seem to be a gain overall. Of course, it would be a bigger gain if the young women who are being looked after had money to spend, but perhaps getting them into income-earning condition is a paying investment in the longer term.
In these situations involving many actors with many mixed motives, of course it is helpful to elucidate publicly all the calculations as well as all the feelings -- but at the end of the day, the problems of these women have to be addressed by someone somewhere. Chronic mental illness exhausts everyone around it. I guess if we are really going to be forced to choose between being "the best place to raise a child", as the city's vision statement so grandiosly has it, or "the best place to realize a return on your real estate investment", it ought to be the first. But I'm not seeing a serious contradiction between these two, in this particular case. Or not yet. Like I said, I'm confused.