No room for NIMBY if Hamilton is to benefit from good planning
May 23, 2009
TERRY COOKE
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/570692
Being hanged in effigy is an experience you don't soon forget. My trip to the gallows as a rookie city councillor was courtesy of a west Hamilton neighbourhood unhappy with an infill apartment proposal that I supported on the site of an abandoned factory at 101 Broadway Avenue back in 1986.
When opponents of the project protested at a public meeting that the development would attract students (gasp), nurses (horrors) and other undesirables to the neighbourhood, I countered sarcastically that maybe we should just bring back the historic Westdale covenant that precluded blacks, Jews and Eastern European immigrants from owning property there. Subtlety was never my strong suit; my constituents weren't amused.
When council considered the matter, a packed gallery of angry residents became so disruptive that the mayor had to adjourn the meeting and summon security.
But I stood my ground, the two apartments were approved and built and ultimately were a very positive addition to the area. And west-end voters subsequently forgave my impertinence and continued to elect me by big margins.
I recount that character-building political experience to highlight the most pressing and politically volatile planning challenge of this generation. Intensification, infill and brownfield developments constitute both good planning and present enormous economic opportunities for Hamilton, but change is hard for established neighbourhoods, and the knee-jerk reaction is too often to oppose height and density.
Unfortunately, the too frequent response by ward councillors is to pander to not-in-my-back-yard sentiments in order to appease voters. Councillors know their council colleagues and/or the Ontario Municipal Board will be compelled to grant the necessary approvals because of municipal staff support and conformity with provincial planning policies.
This cynical game just breeds distrust by voters who feel manipulated by the process, while discouraging developers from risking capital in a community that doesn't seem to appreciate the financial risks involved in trying to advance good infill projects in the absence of consistent political support.
Thankfully, Ward 1 (west-end) Councillor Brian McHattie demonstrated last week the ability to navigate these difficult political waters.
McHattie was confronted with a proposal for a 10-storey infill apartment building on Ewen Road in an industrial property buffered from the surrounding single-family neighbourhood by a hydro corridor and a mis-mash of other commercial and industrial properties. The development is intended to be a purpose-built student residence.
McHattie did his homework on the file. First, he satisfied himself that the out-of-town developer had a track record for building quality, and effectively managing previous projects. He helped to educate the neighbourhood association about the process, and mediated to get improvements to the aesthetics and scale of the proposal to ensure compatibility with the neighbourhood.
But when a faction of the neighbourhood, led by former councillor Mary Kiss, continued to oppose the development, McHattie did the principled thing and supported the project while encouraging his council colleagues to do likewise.
In some ways the Ewen Road proposal would appear to be a no-brainer since so much of our future is riding on overcoming such predictable opposition to increased density and height.
We will need to do it if we hope to support a Light Rail Transit System, we require it to renew older neighbourhoods and it provides our best opportunity for future economic development and architectural enhancement.
My guess is that McHattie's voters will in time see the wisdom of his judgment on this issue.
Perhaps more importantly, he provided a positive example our council can learn from