Dr. Harry Paikin M.D. #HamOnt

Please contact your Trustee, The Minister of Education and McMaster University and ask that they incorporate the school board headquarters building into the proposed development at 100 Main Street West.

Contacts:

tim.simmons@hwdsb.on.ca, robert.barlow@hwdsb.on.ca, studenttrustee@hwdsb.on.ca, judith.bishop@hwdsb.on.ca, ray.mulholland@hwdsb.on.ca, todd.white@hwdsb.on.ca, laura.peddle@hwdsb.on.ca, lillian.orban@hwdsb.on.ca, wes.hicks@hwdsb.on.ca, alex.johnstone@hwdsb.on.ca, jessica.brennan@hwdsb.on.ca, karen.turkstra@hwdsb.on.ca, dlcouncil@hamilton.ca, lbroten.mpp@liberal.ola.org, ahorwath-co@ndp.on.ca, presdnt@mcmaster.ca, mattjelly@gmail.com
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

100 Main Street West: We deserve a better solution. #HamOnt

For the past year or so, I’ve been vocally opposed to a plan by the Hamilton Wentworth District School Board and McMaster University that would see McMaster purchase the School Board headquarters at 100 Main Street West, and demolish the building to make way for a proposed Downtown Health Campus. The City of Hamilton has contributed a $20 Million grant to the project, as well as an above-market long term lease to house the Public Health department in the new development, valued at $27 million over 30 years.

What I’m not opposed to is the concept of the Health Campus itself. I’m one of many people who would love to see McMaster finally play a larger role in our downtown. I’ve always felt McMaster could play a progressive role in the ongoing efforts to revitalize our downtown core. Considering the many great examples of adaptive reuse and heritage preservation that exist on McMaster’s own campus, I always thought McMaster could play a role as a major tenant in one of many vacant and underutilized buildings downtown.

I guess my expectation of our City’s foremost educational institution is at the heart of my disappointment with the proposed development. With all of its considerable resources, McMaster has decided the best way to arrive as a major player in our downtown is to do what our civic leaders already do so well: knock down another beautiful building that could just as feasibly be restored, incorporated and adapted for ongoing use. Failing that, we also have countless acres of underperforming vacant lots and parking lots that could be filled in with new development.

There’s no shortage of places where McMaster could develop, especially since the City of Hamilton itself is paying for half of their tab on this project. But they’ve made up their mind- they want to knock down the building at 100 Main Street West, seemingly no matter what the public has to say or wants to know about it.

After a while, I’ll candidly tell you that I feel like I’m beating my head against a wall, when it comes to trying to convince seemingly otherwise smart and well-intentioned people that demolition doesn’t have to be the default option when it comes to redeveloping the downtown core.

Why does it matter?

When I try to advocate for the preservation of any building, people ask me why it matters. I suppose I’ve tried to establish myself as someone who fights for what’s important, the fundamental issues that Hamilton needs to overcome. So people ask me, why do buildings matter? Why is heritage important? When Hamilton is facing other enormous challenges, why does it matter whether a building is torn down?

And then they say the same old thing: “You know, we can’t save every building.” I’ve heard the phrase countless times, every time I suggest that a building should be restored rather than flattened and thrown into the landfill. Those who say it like to pretend that we normally do a good job of preserving our building stock. Those who say it never actually want to save any buildings, and the phrase is a handy way for them to shrug it off and be thoughtless.

Tell me if I’m wrong, but this is what I’ve seen Hamilton do, time and time again: We unanimously complain and agree that Hamilton needs to move forward, to live up to it’s potential, to once and for all shake off whatever atrophy that has hung over the City like a dark cloud for too many decades. I know this frustration because I listen carefully to what my fellow Hamiltonians say.

In that frustration, we get excited about ONE BIG THING that we think will make that frustration go away somehow. We’re a city that desperately wants to believe in a silver bullet.

In the 60’s and 70’s, we lost entire blocks of buildings, hundreds of homes and businesses expropriated and demolished to make way for Jackson Square and York Boulevard. In the 80’s, we thought it wise to build a giant new arena to house our inevitable NHL franchise. In the 90’s, an old Big Idea gained traction in The Red Hill Creek expressway; we spent half a billion dollars to build a 8 kilometres of highway through the last large natural area in the East end. In 2010, we spent an entire year fighting one another over what part of town the next Big Thing would go.

We do it again and again- we gamble away our long-term assets for short term gain. We fall in love with well-drawn concept sketches and unsubstantiated claims. We decide we need to destroy something in order to create something.

So here we go again.

McMaster and the School Board may be on the verge of striking a deal which would see the Board vacate 100 Main Street West and McMaster demolish the building. The schoolboard will either move to a location on the property where Crestwood school currently stands, sending 450 Board of Education jobs to a residential neighbourhood, where the only retail environment in proximity is Limeridge Mall, where conglomerates paying minimum wage will enjoy all of the economic spinoff. Two buildings will be crushed into the ground, and two expensive boxes of glass will replace them.

Preservation has never been seriously considered.

In November 2007, the Board was considering several options for what to do with 100 Main Street West, and to address the issue of accomodating their staff- which for some reason needs more space, even though enrollment in the public board is steadily in decline. The board was presented with a number of concepts, one of which was restoring and adapting their current headquarters. The staff report estimated that this concept would cost $65 Million. However, that number included an addition onto the building, as well as underground parking- suggesting that the actual cost of restoring the building itself is much less than $65 Million. The staff report is not included in the minutes of the November 5, 2007 Committee of the Whole meeting at which it was presented. I’ve asked the board several times since July 2011 to supply me with that staff report, and that request has been repeatedly ignored. I believe we need to see the cost breakdown of this estimate, and know for certain how much it would cost to preserve and incorporate this building into any new development.

The Ombudsman of Ontario recently publicly admonished Hamilton City Council for holding a meeting last June 27th behind closed doors. At this meeting, five McMaster representatives had the luxury of presenting their plans for the Downtown Health Campus to councillors in private, asking for a grant of $20 Million towards their project from city coffers. Even though City staff warned councillors that they were wrong to be in camera on this item, they proceeded behind closed doors anyway.

This plan has seen many permutations over the years, but not once has anyone meaningfully forwarded the concept of the current Board of Education building be incorporated into the development- that option has never been examined at any length. We hear it all the time from councillors who are frustrated that we make decisions not based on all of the information and evidence, but rather on what is politically expedient. But, here we are again.

We have a bubble around us in Hamilton that seems to block out any sort of progressive development mentality. And until we pop that bubble, the cloud of atrophy will still hang over us, no matter how many buildings we destroy or how many boxes of glass we manage to build underneath it.

A Second Tower at City Hall – A worthy proposal to house Public Health

A new idea has been forwarded to prevent the Board of Education from leaving the downtown core, by Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr- to build a second tower on City Hall to lease out to the school board. Councillor Farr introduced this idea as a notice of motion at the January 25th meeting of City Council, in which he points out that City Hall was designed with foundations already built for a second tower.

While I appreciate Jason’s effort to keep the Board of Education in the downtown core, I feel he’s on the wrong side of Main Street on this issue. This plan would still mean we’re demolishing the Board Headquarters at 100 Main Street West, and the City would be aiding and abetting that senseless demolition entirely with public dollars.

Maybe Jason’s idea is not completely without merit: If we’re going to build a second tower on the back of City Hall, why not use that tower to house city offices which we’re currently leasing elsewhere? Rather than pay an above-market lease in the new McMaster development to house public health, we’d be far better off to house public health in the proposed 2nd tower. The Board of Education can be McMaster’s anchor tenant, and Public Health can still enjoy the synergy of proximity to the Downtown Health Campus.

I believe only one solution makes sense: for the Board of Education and McMaster to enter a partnership at 100 Main Street West, one that sees the current building restored and incorporated into a Downtown Health Campus on the large lot on the North side of the building facing King. It’s the only solution that both keeps the Board of Education in the core, and doesn’t involve unnecessary demolition of a civic landmark. But it can only happen with the Ministry of Education’s approval of a partnership, and time is running out. It’s time to give this option the consideration it deserves.

Please contact your School Board Trustee, your City Councillor and most importantly, the Minister of Education Laurel Broten and McMaster President Patrick Deane. Tell them it’s time for McMaster and the School Board to rethink this project entirely.

Contacts:

Minister of Education Laurel Broten lbroten.mpp@liberal.ola.org
McMaster President Patrick Deane presdnt@mcmaster.ca
Tim Simmons – Board Chair, Ward 3 Trustee tim.simmons@hwdsb.on.ca
Robert Barlow – Vice-Chair, Ward 9 and 10 Trustee robert.barlow@hwdsb.on.ca
Judy Shen, Jacqueline Janas- Student Trustees studenttrustee@hwdsb.on.ca
Judith Bishop – Ward 1 & 2 Trustee judith.bishop@hwdsb.on.ca
Ray E. Mulholland – Ward 4 Trustee ray.mulholland@hwdsb.on.ca
Todd White – Ward 5 Trustee todd.white@hwdsb.on.ca
Laura Peddle – Ward 6 Trustee laura.peddle@hwdsb.on.ca
Lillian Orban – Ward 7 Trustee lillian.orban@hwdsb.on.ca
Wes Hicks – Ward 8 Trustee wes.hicks@hwdsb.on.ca
Alex Johnstone – Ward 11 & 12 Trustee alex.johnstone@hwdsb.on.ca
Jessica Brennan – Ward 13 Trustee  jessica.brennan@hwdsb.on.ca
Karen Turkstra – Ward 14 & 15 Trustee karen.turkstra@hwdsb.on.ca
Premier Dalton McGuinty – https://correspondence.premier.gov.on.ca/en/feedback/default.aspx
 
Or just simply copy and paste this to the address line:
tim.simmons@hwdsb.on.ca, robert.barlow@hwdsb.on.ca, studenttrustee@hwdsb.on.ca, judith.bishop@hwdsb.on.ca, ray.mulholland@hwdsb.on.ca, todd.white@hwdsb.on.ca, laura.peddle@hwdsb.on.ca, lillian.orban@hwdsb.on.ca, wes.hicks@hwdsb.on.ca, alex.johnstone@hwdsb.on.ca, jessica.brennan@hwdsb.on.ca, karen.turkstra@hwdsb.on.ca, dlcouncil@hamilton.ca, lbroten.mpp@liberal.ola.org, ahorwath-co@ndp.on.ca, presdnt@mcmaster.ca, mattjelly@gmail.com
 
PLEASE SHARE THIS ARTICLE VIA SOCIAL MEDIA: 
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Lion’s Share #HamOnt

Directed by Matt Jelly
Music: Trois Gymnopedies written in 1888 by Erik Satie, recomposed by Matt Jelly

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

An Open Letter to Dave Maden, owner of 249 Hess Street North and 245 Catherine Street North #HamOnt

Hi Dave.

My name is Matt Jelly.

1 year, 3 months and 22 days ago, I reported your property at 249 Hess Street North to the Ministry of the Environment, for containing hundreds of barrels of improperly stored hazardous waste, strewn about in a series of crumbling structures on your property. This property is situated in proximity to a residential neighbourhood.

As a result of reporting your property to the Ministry, it was revealed by the Hamilton Spectator that you owned a second property, just blocks away at 245 Catherine Street North, which existed in a similar state of disrepair and neglect, containing numerous vats of high-phosphorous rainwater. This site also used to house 200,000-300,000 litres of corrosive chemicals, including chromic acid, phosphoric acid, cyanide, sulpheric acid, nickel acid, nickel chloride, zinc chloride, and an assortment of barrels containing caustic acid and nickel solutions. During your ownership of the property, these chemicals seem to have been removed from this site. It is unclear to myself and others however, where that material ended up.

Having seen personally both a 1999 Hotz Environmental inventory of the Catherine Street North site, as well as corresponding labels on barrels at 249 Hess Street North, I can only conclude that this material was not accounted for and properly disposed of, but rather moved from one property to the other.

The site at 245 Catherine Street North contains a residential house on the property, which for years you have rented out to vulnerable individuals who had no knowledge of the true environmental conditions of the site. You have also enlisted some of these vulnerable individuals in the handling and improper disposal of hazardous material on this site. This site also exists directly across the road from a retirement home, which predominantly houses vulnerable senior citizens living on the margins of society.

Now Dave, before you start thinking I’m picking on you, you should know that 1 year, 3 months, and 16 days ago, I also exposed a large toxic mess at a property you do not own, at 350 Wentworth Street North. It contained hundreds of barrels of tar byproduct, as well as a big coal tar pit. That was also in a residential neighbourhood. It still hasn’t been completely cleaned up, despite previous promises to have it cleaned up by mid-October. The owners of that property are also under investigation by our mutual friends at the Ministry of the Environment.

Your two properties have been under investigation by the Ministry for more than a year now. I have a lot of questions, most of which can’t be answered until these investigations finally wrap up and their results can be entered into the public record.

Yesterday afternoon, as a result of your failure to pay taxes on 249 Hess Street North, your property was put up for tax sale by the City of Hamilton. No offers were made on it. My guess is that the City of Hamilton may have to oversee a process that would see the property be remediated and redeveloped by a new owner, hopefully with a capability and competence which you do not seem to possess.

This week, the City of Hamilton also completed the removal of vats from the property at 245 Catherine, and demolished the industrial buildings on the site, at a cost of $135,000, which will be added to your tax bill. In the event that you fail to pay these taxes, the $135,000 will exist in the form of a permanent lien on the property. The soil on this site remains contaminated with lead and chrome. City staff is awaiting a full analysis by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates.

So, now you’re suing the City of Hamilton and the Ministry of the Environment for $3.5 Million. You paid $22,245 for 249 Hess Street North, and $22,240 for 245 Catherine Street North. Get real.

I had a chance to read the Statement of Claim you entered to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in your suit against the City and the MOE on November 3rd, 2011. I couldn’t help but notice that you mentioned my name a few times, along with a few allegations which are wholly inaccurate and in my view defamatory.

In your claim, under heading “For Injunctive Relief and for Damages“, you have a list of 22 points. Point 20 states that Mr. Chris Meyers, an individual I’ve never met, deposited two shipping containers on your property. You go on to allege that Mr. Meyers tipped me off to the presence of the material. You also characterize me as “Mat Jelly, a 27 year old on social assistance, who aspired to be the Mayor of Hamilton”.

Let me make a few things clear to you. I have never met Mr. Chris Meyers, another individual named in your lawsuit. I didn’t need much of a tip to find the mess on your property. As a result of focusing my attention on property standards by-law compliance, which was well-documented in local media, I was led to investigate your property because it was in a state of serious disrepair, obvious from observation standing on public property. I was initially informed of the possibility of hazardous material on this site by a fellow concerned citizen, but Mr. Meyers was not this individual.

As for your characterization of me personally, I should inform you that I am a 29 year old who has never received social assistance, but nonetheless believes those services ought to exist for those who do in fact need them. I don’t believe however, as you seem to, that the concerns of any citizen in our community should be considered less valid, based on how they derive an income. Shame on you.

There was a time where I did in fact seek election for Mayor, but that was 8 years ago today. Last fall, I sought the council seat for Ward 2, unsuccessfully I might add.

I did not expose these sites as some sort of gimmick to get myself elected. I exposed the conditions of these sites because I love the city I live in. I ran for the Ward 2 council seat for that same reason. The person who did in fact win the election for the Ward 2 council seat, Councillor Jason Farr, feels as I do that these two properties are a blight on our community and must be mitigated.

As you proceed in your satirical $3.5 Million lawsuit against the City of Hamilton, the municipal government representing the citizens of Hamilton, as well as the Ministry of the Environment and a number of civil servants who I have gained a lot of respect for through this process, I think I speak for the majority of my fellow Hamiltonians when I say that the 500,000 of us aren’t very happy with you. We’re pissed.

And if the past year of Hamilton’s political history is any indication, we’re not prone to arriving all on the same page. On this, we are resolute.

You have no business left to do in our City. Don’t come back.

Matt Jelly

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Bob Bratina’s Forthcoming Autobiography #HamOnt

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Bob Bratina’s Platform on LRT #HamOnt

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Prayer in City Council Meetings: Is it Appropriate? #HamOnt

*This blog entry first appeared on Open File Hamilton. You can find the post as it originally appeared here.

Hamilton city council meetings often begin with a ceremonial activity of some sort – sometimes it is simply to highlight an achievement by staff, to present an award or to mark the passing of a prominent Hamiltonian. Quite regularly, the ceremonial activities include a prayer led by a member of a local house of worship.

The inclusion of religious prayers before council is at the discretion of the city clerk’s office, including the selection of speakers. During July and August, council meetings happen during the day, so ceremonial activities are not often included; otherwise, these ceremonial activities occur year-round.

A question could be asked, in the spirit of separation of church and state, whether the inclusion of religious ceremony at a council meeting, in a public government building, is appropriate. But in the very least, if this kind of ceremonial activity occurs, the notion of equality and inclusion ought to factor into how those speakers are selected.

In the first half of 2011, nine out of 12 prayer sessions were led by speakers from houses of worship identified as Christian churches. One was Aboriginal, one was Jewish and one was led by the mayor himself. In 2010, all but one of the 14 prayer sessions were conducted by Christian churches.

In a community as ethnically, culturally and spiritually diverse as Hamilton, it strikes me as odd that the selection of presenters for this sort of ceremonial activity would not reflect that diversity in a way that is fair and equal. While Canada does not have a constitutional separation of Church and State, most Canadians share the values of multiculturalism, pluralism, religious freedom and equality.

By comparison, London, Kitchener, Burlington, and Toronto are among city councils that do not include religious prayers as a part of city council proceedings. Toronto typically observes a moment of silence when council meetings begin to honour those who have recently passed away. Ottawa city council begins proceedings with a very short prayer in English and French, which is not particularly denominational, but does make reference to “Almighty God.”

This is an issue that has been contentious, particularly in smaller Ontario communities. In 1999, a citizen of Penetanguishene objected specifically to the recital of the Lord’s Prayer before Council meetings, on the grounds that it violated his Charter Right to freedom of conscience and religion. The Ontario Court of Appeal decided that municipal councils are technically in violation of the Charter in reciting specifically religious prayers.

Despite that ruling, some municipalities in Ontario still continue the practice. Oshawa city council, Grey county council, Peterborough city council are among some municipalities that still recite the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of meetings. Earlier this year, Hastings Highlands discontinued the practice.

City Hall is a place that should be inclusive of the entire community – where every citizen, regardless of age, race, gender, sexuality or religious belief is welcome to engage with civic life. Considering that, is it appropriate to open city council meetings with religious proceedings? Even if the selection of invited speakers were made equal in terms of houses of worship being represented, is this ceremonial activity inclusive of citizens who do not belong to a particular faith, or those who do not consider themselves religious? I believe the inclusion of religious ceremonial activities at City Hall should be carefully reconsidered, and these tough questions of equity and inclusion should be asked.It may be a hard task to organize these ceremonies in a way that is fully equal, in a way that represents the beliefs of every citizen. If full equality is not feasible, perhaps the inclusion of religious prayer before city council meetings is a practice that ought to be retired.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Garbage Crawl: This Saturday in #HamOnt

Garbage Crawl is starting up again for the fall- please join us this Saturday September 17th in Durand Park (Charlton Avenue West and Park Street South- map below) at 9 am. Bags and gloves will be supplied but feel free to bring along anything else you think would make the job easier. For more info, please visit our facebook page at www.garbagecrawl.ca



View Larger Map
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Last minute concept drawing for Velodrome emerges #HamOnt

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Jean Chrétien hops a fence: the inevitable animated gif. #cdnpoli www.mattjelly.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment