HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Suburbs


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2008, 11:17 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
spare us the agony please.

get your facts straight before mouthing off to the rest of us.

-The city is paying millions for the Hwy5/6 interchange.
- Councillor McCarthy has LED the charge for the power centre development despite protests from Waterdown BIA, Dundas Downtown and Westdale BIA.
- Whether or not you care about sprawl is irrelavent. the fact is, it costs a ton of money to service and develop. Flambasterdas only generates around $40 million in taxes every year (a paltry amount compared to any ward in the old city). Who is paying for all their sprawl servicing and maintainance? Who is paying for all the snow/garbage/road maintainance over the massive, spread out region of Flamborough? The OLD city of Hamilton always has, and still is.

They are crybabies and have become spoiled brats due to the free ride they received since 1974 in Regional Government.
The party's over and fairness is slowly creeping back into Hamilton's regional tax system. Not a moment too soon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2008, 2:33 AM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
Wow, hit a nerve did I? Re-read my post--I stated I had no idea what the funding mix was for 5&6--merely that it is an MTO project, which it is.

Secondly, I find it ironic that I would be accused of "mouthing off"--something I've actually never participated in here. This thread, if you read it carefully is nothing but name calling, provincial thinking, finger-pointing and chest-thumping. Did I say I support Margaret McCarthy? Never have to tell you the truth--have no time for her whatsoever--and I'm reasonably sure I didn't misspeak on that point.

Lastly, if you actually believe this us vs. them attitude will somehow advance the city/region's fortunes going forward, you are, I'm afraid to say, dead wrong. As much as you'd like to believe that the "old" City of Hamilton (I stand corrected--only the portion north of Fennell) is an island unto itself with poor suburban communities clinging to it for dear life--you are sadly mistaken. The entire region--and I mean--GTA, through Hamilton, through Niagara works, prospers and develops as a single organic unit. Until such a time that you choose to embrace the idea that people need to work "together", you are as completely guilty for the negativity and bickering that has hogtied the city, and region for decades.

Now, I accept that you're a passionate person--fair enough. Perhaps wait until you're seeing a little less red before you respond to my posts here. You already know where I grew up, you already know what history and attachement my family has in relation to Hamilton--so please don't expect me to come on here and expect to give people a free-ride while they shit on everyone in an entire (former) town--becuase they have an agenda or an axe to grind, or because they dislike a particular politician. You have no problem at all 'defending' your community from criticism, and frankly, you shouldn't expect less from anyone else.

Remind me again why the old City of Hamilton was so hot on amalgamation? I was entirely opposed to splitting Flamborough amongst Brant, Waterloo and Halton--I thought it was an utterly sickening idea. Do you understand the roots of the argument though--can you find me another municpal issues thread where the people in Flamborough are called 'idiots'?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2008, 2:49 AM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
no, you didn't hit a nerve. I just refuse to sit back while the folks in flamborough complain as if they are being hard done by.
They still have it better than most people in the entire city.

You said in your post that there were many complete inaccuracies in this discussion. I haven't read any.
You also suggested that the city of Hamilton forced the big box crap on waterdown. that's wrong. their councillor fought for it, despite objections from several inner city councillors who wondered how much more of our land can be wasted like this.

I agree completely with your description of this entire region growing and working together. In fact, that's what city council is trying to do. The province forced amalgamation on everyone. A band of political elites like Terry Cooke et al were the ones who wanted it. I can only assume that they really thought it would bring savings. Sadly, they were wrong.
That's a separate issue though.
Even if we'd stayed with the regional government system I'd want these changes in the tax system to be happening. We subsidized the growth of the suburbs while downtown hamilton rotted before our eyes.
As Bob Wade admitted during his mayoral election campaign, the old city of Hamilton funded "probably 70-75% of the costs of new development in Ancaster". No shite.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2008, 3:13 AM
realcity's Avatar
realcity realcity is offline
Bruatalism gets no respec
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Williamsville NY
Posts: 3,999
How can they expect to have city amenities when they don't live in the City?

Is HSR supposed to run busses out there, and stop once every kilometer within the range of three houses?

Just wait another two months when there is a summer drought, and see how vocal they are about Hamilton imposing water restrictions on their vast lawnscapes. There was already a letter to the Ed today mentioning it.

And sidewalks.... they don't want them. Why? there's nowhere to walk to. It's totally car dependent. This is why I look forward to $2.50/L gas.

The lots are huge. If we broke down how much tax is paid per sq ft, they'd see that Hamilton home owners are paying a lot more... even with area rating.

Besides Flamboro itself is a contrived 'town'. I could take their own argument and say Rockton gets to keep all the Casino taxes, nevermind Waterdown, Carlisle, Freelton etc.

Spare me the 'us vs them' BS. As soon as something like taxes and services, or anything negative about Hamilton comes up, they're the ones that collectivly and conveniently group together under the Flamboro label.
__________________
Height restrictions and Set-backs are for Nimbys and the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2008, 4:42 AM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
I'm not getting into a tit-for-tat game. I didn't suggest the City of Hamilton "FORCED" the big box development in Flamborough--I pointed out the fact that the interim control by-law which prevented pre-amalgamation disappeared when the town disappeared. That is no more a suggestion that the new city "forced" it than your suggestion that the city (only inner city taxpayers?) were paying for the 5/6 reconstruction. Again, despite years/months of absolutely tearing the City administration to pieces--you are quick to rush to their defence when it is convenient--frankly I find this a confusing disconnect.

Take a serious look at a few of the posts in this thread and how often you read the word "THEY" then get back to me on exactly how it is that you see the region working together--they do this, they do that, they are crybabies, etc. I never agreed with amalgamation whatsoever--it's cost savings were grossly overstated and the resulting amalgam is simply too diverse to operate effectively. This was recognized in the Montreal area where a plebiscite decided which island communities would revert to their own identities and which would remain part of the MUC. Regional government was flawed--definitely, but no more flawed than the current model. Regional government allowed for the sharing of some key services while retaining others locally in distinct, identifiable communities. The former City of Hamilton's lack of growth potential was absolutely a key point in the process--failing to recognize that fails to address the root problems with the current scenario.

Accepting the fact that amalgamation happened and the band of dunces at Queens Park will never reverse it--where do we go from here. To be frank, as much as you all display a lot of progressive ideas here--you actually hate 3/4 of the land mass and about half of your own city's population. When downtown was dying there were still dairy cattle grazing behind Lime Ridge Mall (itself within the proper City of Hamilton)--so how does the blame get affixed to the suburbs when the bulk of downtown's deterioration came during a time when the most growth was within the city itself? By the time Regional government was abolished explosive growth in the suburbs was just coming to pass, and downtown had already been hollowed out--abandoned as much by Hamitonians themselves as Ancasterites or Dundasians.

This whole sidewalk issue is an interesting one. There are several developments reaching back to the 1950s and 1960s which were constructed without sidewalks. Some people like them, others don't. I live in a 70s subdivision that has them on a single side of the streets, other areas have double, some areas have none.

As for realcity--we get that you HATE the suburbs, everything they stand for and all the people in them...loud and clear...which is why your avatar is made of predominantly suburban retailers. Indeed, there are people of narrow-minds who think provincially and as a result will never visit downtown, and despite what may seem like differences of opinion--you my friend, are exactly like them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2008, 12:02 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
in case you hadn't noticed this thread is about Flamborough. that's why the constant use of the word "they", "them".
I live in downtown Hamilton.

Would you be happy if I said "I'm such a crybaby! I'm so ticked that my taxes are going up by 10%. I'm tired of all my water restrictions"etc... ??

Get real.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2008, 3:20 PM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
Wherein lies the problem. As opposed to "they" it ought to be "we"...

All I'm doing is challenging the arguments that I read here--and for some reason what I'm getting back is anger.

Quote
Get real.

That's just outright dismissive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2008, 3:43 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 8,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom View Post
Lastly, though I have no specific knowledge of the funding sources for the project--I can assure you that the Highway 5/6 reconstruction is an MTO project, and not a City one. And though I am "less concerned" about sprawl than others here--the vast majority of Waterdown's "sprawl" has occured post-amalgamation--in fact interim control by-laws limiting the scope of the "power center" development at 5/6 disappeared with the Town of Flamborough--prior to that there were measures in place designed to protect the village businesses in Waterdown.
interim control bylaws can only be applied for a maximum of two years, they are just temporary. their purpose is to stop development so a planning/land use study can be done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2008, 4:56 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom View Post
Wherein lies the problem. As opposed to "they" it ought to be "we"...

All I'm doing is challenging the arguments that I read here--and for some reason what I'm getting back is anger.

Quote
Get real.

That's just outright dismissive.

it's supposed to be dismissive. Not of you, but of your less than valid point.
So, whenever I refer to someone in another town or city in the Golden Horseshoe I'm supposed to refer to them as "we"???
Feel free to not answer that so we can end this portion of the discussion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2008, 7:55 PM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
I don't know whether you are ignoring my point on purpose, merely avoiding it or are oblivious to it. The entire 'theme' of this Thread is Us Vs. Them--denial of that seriously harms your credibility. If this is by design--I applaud you--I don't believe in going on the defensive myself--but suggesting that I mean you refer to people in other municipalities as "us" is ridiculous--you're smart, I'm sure you know full well that that's not what I'm suggesting. Seriously, read this thread, it is incredibly ugly in nature. I'm sure you have your reasons for ignoring the unbelievable generalizations in it--you yourself acknowledge that you use this Forum as a pulpit for your agenda--and these generalizations support that. Nonetheless, your failure to respond to the points I've made prior to this post leaves the impression to me that the statements you and others have made are indefensible--I'm not saying that's the case at all--I'm pointing out the fact that you've ignorned my points and chosen instead to attack the way in which I've expressed them.

Just as all people in Flamborough are not represented by this unknown person with the 3 acre lawn that's worried about watering restrictions, not everyone in Hamilton is represented by Michael Baldassaro. Painting everyone outside the former City limits as biased against the city seems to be the grist on which this mill runs. If you read back through this thread it is clear that the initial poster intended this to be incendiary in nature. Did you make note of the fact that a number of posters suggested potential solutions? Did those suggestions enrich the conversation--or were they outright ignored in favor of more rhetoric about "crybabies" and "free rides" under H-W government?

I respect your participation in this Forum, but do not expect for a minute that something so egregiously biased is going to go unchecked--I would expect no less from you if I, or anyone else came here and made statements of a similar nature about "those people" in the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2008, 9:50 PM
coalminecanary coalminecanary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,404
The problem is that the councillors who represent the furthest reaches of the city always seem to be the strongest supporters of the most backward thinking, and seem to favour decisions which hurt hamilton as a whole rather than help it.

I think most of us here agree that, since we are already amalgamated, we have to work together or else the city will fall further behind. We all have different feelings about whether amalgamation was a good idea or bad, but that being said, I think we all realize that we have to work with what we've got -- a mini-megacity.

In my opinion, the councillors who have the best ideas and who seem to be driven by passion for Hamilton as a whole rather than personal local agendas are McHattie and Bratina. I'm sure they do fight for their own ward issues as well, but I definitely get a sense from both of them that they are highly motivated by improvements to hamilton as a whole.

On the other extreme, we have Ferguson who, in my opinion, just does not understand reality sometimes, and seems to make decisions based purely on his own opinions regardless of the effect on hamilton as a whole.

In between, we have a lot of councillors who seem to be able to relate to their own wards but just cannot muster any vision for the city as a whole.

And to be fair, the initiation of this Flamborough argument was their own councillor urging them to request de-amalgamation and to withhold property taxes as punishment to the city because council was trying to force them to financially become, you know, part of the city.

So in this case especially, "they" are the ones fostering the us vs them mentality, and "they" are the reason we are discussing this mentality. I've seen many more disgusting threads than this one on here ;-)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2008, 10:05 PM
HAMRetrofit's Avatar
HAMRetrofit HAMRetrofit is offline
Pro Urban Degenerate
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto-Hamilton Mega Region
Posts: 839
In the scheme of things does Flamborouh really matter? What are its contributions to Hamilton or Canada? My suspicion is that the town is rather minute and contributes very little to national GDP. It is only natural that it should be asked to contribute more to our society. The increased taxes and gambling loot will help boost their national and local identity.

How about the wards with Bay Street or Stelco Pier get a free ride for a while not sharing revenue? Lets see what that does for the greater good of our cities and in effect our country.

Last edited by HAMRetrofit; Apr 26, 2008 at 11:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2008, 1:51 AM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
Does Hamilton matter HAMRetrofit--because I think Flamborough is PART of Hamilton.

I make no argument about the basis of the discussion (though I stand by my suggestion that the discussion was intiated to elicit the very response it did)--nonetheless, the posts prior to the most recent ones were the typical refrain of "those people are idiots" and the usual talk of how eventually the towns will spiral into decay and Hamilton proper will be reborn and all will be right in the world again, and the 'free ride' will end, etc etc. There were suggestions made--progressive ones--in an attempt to ease the transition of gambling revenues--perhaps making it more palatable to Flamborough. Imagine that--compromise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2008, 2:03 AM
HAMRetrofit's Avatar
HAMRetrofit HAMRetrofit is offline
Pro Urban Degenerate
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto-Hamilton Mega Region
Posts: 839
Fastcars my point was that Flamborough matters and Hamilton matters but... These cities/towns become more relevant based on their contribution to the whole country. Flamborough no longer exists as a political entity. We can't make exceptions for it based on the implications that it would have on other wards. Profit needs to go directly to the municipality for distribution. If this is not the case then where is the money technically going? It is technically going straight from the slots into the pockets of Flamborough resident's pockets. We can't have this because of the larger implications elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2008, 2:09 AM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
Quote
My suspicion is that the town is rather minute and contributes very little to national GDP. It is only natural that it should be asked to contribute more to our society

You have a unique way of making your point. Nevertheless, my arguments are based less on the specific issue of OLG revenues and more on the key in which the song has been sung in this thread. Are specific councillors playing this for political purposes?--absolutely...no argument from me. What disturbs me are 'progressive' thinkers who are quick to brand an area of the city with a population of 35,000 as "idiots, whiners, crybabies" etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2008, 4:31 AM
HAMRetrofit's Avatar
HAMRetrofit HAMRetrofit is offline
Pro Urban Degenerate
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto-Hamilton Mega Region
Posts: 839
Well when a chancellor cries over something as petty as this I think it is fair to say critics are blatantly stating the obvious regarding that individual. If people from the community validate that behavior that puts those particular people in the same position. I doubt that most would support this particular thing because I sure would not from my elected officials.

In the municipality, Flamborough residents are going to need to eventually pay the same tax rate per square foot per service as people living on Barton Street or where ever else. There is never going to be any deamalgamation so just face reality and stop wasting time. Things like this have a natural way of balancing themselves out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2008, 4:59 AM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
I have no use or time for McCarthy. Assumptions were made by some based on my posts that I somehow support that particular councillor--which is far from the case. In my formitive years--before amalgamation--Flamborough politics was dominated by an insular and connected "few" in true small-town fashion. Sadly, there has been some spillover into the present day--and it will take some years for people like Margaret McCarthy and McMeekin to disappear. Playing the OLG card all these years after amalgamation is pure politics--though I certainly appreciate the input of posters who suggested compromises to the situation. Fair to say if the money was suddenly flowing away from Hamilton to some other municipality that there would be a vocal few raising their voices--it's inevitable. Nonetheless, I would bet (sorry for the pun) that many of these self-righteous types were the same ones dead set against gaming when it was first introduced in Ontario--they'd have been aghast at the thought of a "gambling parlor" in the midst of UEL territory. Doesn't take long when the dollars roll in for minds to magically change.

As for taxation--I think it's fair to say we probably disagree to some extent on the issue of area rating--in fact I know we do, but this isn't the time or place for that argument.

Correct you are, however, most of these issues will even out in time. There is some truly breathtaking beauty in Flamborough--issues aside you are blessed to have it included--intact--as part of the new city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2008, 5:12 AM
HAMRetrofit's Avatar
HAMRetrofit HAMRetrofit is offline
Pro Urban Degenerate
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto-Hamilton Mega Region
Posts: 839
I do believe in area rating. However I am quite precise in the way I view it. I see that if individuals live within the urban boundary and are receiving any urban services they should be paying for everything including transit. I see if individuals are not living within the urban boundary and living without any urban services they should be exempt. The property owner within the rural area would need to be entirely that, rural, with no municipal services particularly water or sewers. Its either all or nothing with me no in betweens for suburban residents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2008, 5:26 AM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
I think we could come close to common ground on that HAMRetrofit. I don't claim to know the intricacies of municipal taxation--but I assume under the H-W government that Dundas and Stoney Creek paid for HSR considering each was/is served extensively--including local routes.

From a personal perspective, I know where I grew up--my folks' "homestead" has no urban services--and thanks to Greenbelt, will not for the forseeable future. Facing the realities of the stark difference between the 11th Concession in Flamborough and Corktown is one of the intricacies of managing a "city" of such diverse land uses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2008, 3:45 PM
realcity's Avatar
realcity realcity is offline
Bruatalism gets no respec
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Williamsville NY
Posts: 3,999
something i hate more then Flamboro is when people say "sorry for the pun". It's the most annoying thing in a conversation. Fastcars are you Bill Kelly? o no you're not... or else you'd be saying "invariably" ALL THE TIME... and using it incorrectly too.
__________________
Height restrictions and Set-backs are for Nimbys and the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Suburbs
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:16 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.