Now Reading
Could debate over complete streets trigger the end of area rating?

Could debate over complete streets trigger the end of area rating?

If there is one positive note to arise from the acrimonious debate over the Aberdeen Avenue traffic calming measure, it may be that it might lead to a city-wide traffic study. The issue arose when Ward 14 Councillor Terry Whitehead had requested a “complete streets” study for his ward. The request came in the aftermath of the divisive debates over the Aberdeen traffic calming issue. In the case of Aberdeen Avenue, the technical study that led to the decision to remove traffic lanes on Aberdeen was funded from Ward One Councillor Maureen Wilson’s Area Rating discretionary fund, which is only available to the original Hamilton wards. Upper Stoney Creek Councillor Brad Clark made the point that the seven suburban wards do not have access to discretionary   funding and as a result are disadvantaged when it comes to  being able to pay for traffic studies for their wards.

Public Works Director Dann McKinnon said it would be “music to the ears” of the traffic department to be given the green light to do a comprehensive city-wide traffic study. He warned council that such a study would carry a “fairly hefty” price tag. His department will draft a proposal for council consideration.

The entire discussion came close to reopening what has been one of the most divisive issues facing Hamilton since amalgamation—area rating. At the time of amalgamation, as costs were being allocated between the Hamilton and suburban wards, the suburban wards were allowed to opt out of paying for certain services like transit where the availability of service was not equally distributed. After intense negotiation the original eight Hamilton wards ended up with a small tax decrease and the suburban wards were given a tax increase. All wards agreed that instead of a small tax decrease in the original Hamilton Wards, they would instead receive a discretionary fund of approximately $1 Million per ward per year to upgrade local infrastructure. Fast forward to today’s meeting with the surprise revelation by City Finance Chief Mike Zegarac that staff are looking at options that might make discretionary funding available to the suburban wards as well. Ward 4 Councillor Sam Merulla said he would support such a proposal, suggesting the area rating issue may be dying a natural death 20 years after it was introduced.

What's Your Reaction?
Don't Agree
0
Happy
2
In Love
0
Not Sure
0
View Comments (4)
  • Why is Abetdeen any different then any other street which has traffic?

    What other things could be studied under this area eating discretionary fund, which Councillor Wilson spent without surveying the entire ward?

  • Highly unlikely., at least not with Fred at the helm. See here’s the thing, suburban Councilor Lloyd Ferguson wants nothing to do with area rating, because he knows it is going to cost his constituents some cash, so Freddy brokers a back room deal with Lloyd-vowing never to revisit area rating-so long as Lloyd supports Freds LRT obsession.
    2 clowns who know nothing about transit have ham strung an entire City.
    And this is how things get done at 71 Main.
    These guys gotta go.

  • Well Mr Graham as individuals, meaning not just you and me have the right to speak as delegates. The problem is consensus which can take time and most cases can never be reached.

    So what do we define as majority? In municipal elections they do not take into account those who choose not to vote because, there is really no good candidate, only those who vote. It skews results.

    We need more direct democracy beyond just getting 5 minutes to speak. A good start would to have individual councillor’s surveying their constituents to get an idea where people stand.

    Whether it is transit or the growing homelessness problem, the voices that need to be heard are those affected, not those who lobby, not anchor groups which usually represent business interests which have contributed to the growing divide between the haves and have nots.

    • I couldn’t agree more, and believe you have identified the difference between politicians who “serve” the public, and those who believe they were elected to “lead.”…..wherever they want to go.
      Ultimately, the problem is ours. We elected Fred.

Leave a Reply to Michelle Hruschka Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

© 2019 The Bay Observer. All Rights Reserved.

Scroll To Top