Editorial

More Case Studies in Dysfunctional Governance

A common theme of reflexive fear, heavy-handed bureaucracy and lack of vision runs through several of today's civic governance stories.

By Ryan McGreal
Published December 05, 2012

Today's Spectator will be a dispiriting read to anyone who is passionate about urban revitalization and good civic governance.

Councillors Chicken Out

First, the planning committee dismissed a proposal to establish a pilot project in wards 1 and 2 to licence urban chickens. Instead of a reasoned discussion based on evidence, the committee discussion was punctuated by sarcasm, hyperbole and fear-mongering.

Yes, once again a gaggle of suburban councillors has reflexively shut down a proposal that would only apply to urban wards and has a strong weight of evidence to support it from other jurisdictions. The pilot would not even apply in their wards, and it would give the city a chance to discover first-hand whether it makes sense to allow backyard chickens.

Councillor Maria Pearson claimed the pilot will trigger waves of complaints, even though other southern Ontario cities with existing chicken bylaws hardly get any complaints.

Councillor Terry Whitehead suggested that if chickens were allowed, people would soon be asking for cows and goats - you know, just like gay marriage in Canada has led to people wanting to marry their pets.

Councillor Councillor Lloyd Ferguson didn't want to discuss the matter at all, and Whitehead said he would like to "kill this as soon as possible."

Public Health noted that there are some potential health issues related to backyard chickens, but that they can be mitigated with reasonable terms in the bylaw. Indeed, Public Health maintains that chickens are no more harmful than other pets, like dogs and cats.

There is simply no good reason whatsoever not to allow responsible people to keep small numbers of chickens in their backyards. There are only bad reasons, which the planning committee provided in spades.

The decision to kill the backyard chicken pilot still needs to be ratified by Council, so you should contact all city councillors and let them know why you support this pilot.

Sanford School Slither

Next up, the public meeting in Ward 3 over the fate of Sanford School, the beautiful 1932 building the Board wants to demolish to make room for some green space and a recreation centre that has not yet been approved or funded.

Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) chair Tim Simmons threw cold water on a last-ditch effort to save the building from demolition, noting that the Board of Trustees would have to change their minds about demolishing it, and "I know there is not a lot of will on the board to change the direction at this point."

Simmons insists that a years-long process was followed before the decision to demolish and that there were lots of opportunities to save the school, but in a recent phone interview with Chris Healey, Simmons acknowledged that the school has not even been for sale for the past ten years, after a call for interest was put out back in 2002.

Any developers who wanted to buy the school were told it was not for sale and they had no way to express interest. Michael Clarke, a Hamilton lawyer who has led this push to save the building, points out that he knows developers right now who have a track record of restoring and adaptively reusing old institutional buildings and want to buy Sanford School.

Once again, we have a delinquent Board of Trustees hiding behind a broken process to close ranks around a narrow, short-sighted decision.

Rental Housing Fiasco

A special December 11, 2012 General Issues Committee meeting will consider an information report [PDF] and a licencing model for apartment rental buildings with between one and six units.

The Spectator reports that the licencing system could eliminate a third of the city's in-house rental units: 4,000 out of 13,000 rental units in houses.

This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences of public policy. The problem is that a huge number of houses have been illegally converted into apartments, mainly because the City's Zoning By-Law makes it all but impossible to convert a house into apartments legally - even in areas that are zoned for high density residential.

Property owners who want to convert their houses to apartments are faced with the prospect of tens of thousands of dollars in fees, parking requirements and cash in lieu of parklands levies if they try to obey the law. The last item - cash in lieu of parklands - is particularly egregious, since the money must be spent on parks in new suburban developments and cannot be used to invest in existing parks.

The proposed licencing system would shut down a huge number of apartment units and disperse thousands of residents in a city that desperately needs affordable housing and claims to favour intensification of its land use.

As Larry Huibers of the Hamilton Housing Help Centre points out, "zoning violations aren't going to kill people, unlike fire and electrical violations." Yet by driving apartment conversions underground through punitive zoning rules, the City ensures that real dangers are driven underground as well.

The zoning by-law is the real culprit. Adding another layer of bureaucracy on top of it is not going to fix the underlying issue that this city subsidizes and incentivizes neglect, demolition and destruction of value, while punishing and disincentivizing the creation of value through reinvestment and redevelopment.

The Two Kings

I want to end this rant on a hopeful note, and today's op-ed by David Premi and Paul Shaker is there to assist. They write about two secondary plans in Toronto that have spurred impressive revitalizations in depressed old industrial neighourhoods: King-Spadina and King-Parliament.

I've been writing glowingly about King-Spadina for years - e.g. here, here, and way back here - and it is heartening to learn that a similar plan in the King-Parliament area has also produced impressive results.

Perhaps the more famous preservation outcome is in the King-Parliament area, which has seen the development of the Distillery District. This is a unique mix of shops, services, galleries and breweries all housed in a restored industrial complex complete with cobblestone streets. A Hamilton comparison might be the Cannon Knitting Mills or the 270 Sherman Avenue Centre.

In a detailed report issued by the City of Toronto in 2002, six short years after the changes were initiated, the remarkable results are recorded, including 86 new development projects totalling more than $400 million. This included 7,040 housing units built or in the pipeline, more than 321,000 square metres of new commercial space, an 18 per cent increase in employment, and an increase in tax assessments of more than 18 per cent. Since 2002, 16 years after implementation, some of these statistics have doubled, tripled, or even quadrupled.

The model is simple and elegant:

the city should reward development it wants by giving developers more of what they want. In Toronto, this meant, in part, historic preservation in exchange for more density, or the ability for developers to build higher than they would normally be allowed under the old zoning rules.

Imagine if we took this approach to our zoning by-law and the twisted mess of stagnation and clandestine intensification it has produced. Imagine if we took this approach to Sanford School and the community in which it could be a thriving anchor development.

Heck, imagine if we took this approach to backyard chickens: instead of micro-managing what people can do with their property, set performance standards and give Hamiltonians the chance to innovate and grow the city.


See also:

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer, writer and consultant. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Ryan writes a city affairs column in Hamilton Magazine, and several of his articles have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. He also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on Twitter @RyanMcGreal. Recently, he took the plunge and finally joined Facebook.

17 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By H+H (registered) - website | Posted December 05, 2012 at 08:11:26

Thanks Ryan. Let me add to the list the Board of Health meeting on Monday at which Dr. Elizabeth Richardson was present to answer questions about her report on the public health impacts of a casino. There weren't any questions. Well, to be more precise, Councillors Farr, Partridge, and Whitehead tried to ask questions, but Bob Bratina raised a point of order and supported a vote to accept the report and move on. Dr. Richardson does not attend all meetings.

I hope she will be invited to attend the Casino Sub-Committee meeting on December 13.

The report, as you might expect, provides some very troubling stats about the social costs of gambling.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By NoChicken (anonymous) | Posted December 05, 2012 at 10:48:58

Why would you want chickens so badly ?
Will it be your pet or soup ?
How many eggs a day you need to get into that mess ?
Do you consider the neighbourhood with more racoons attracted to chicken coops ?
If the chickens are soo needed, talk to the council to create special zonings for mini farms, so that all chicken lovers could live happily there.
If it's just for the kids to enjoy, explain them there comes responsibilities. Otherwise just visit local farms, they will be happy to show them around.
I do like all animals, but think they should be treated responsibly.

Permalink | Context

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted December 05, 2012 at 15:12:44 in reply to Comment 83475

I believe Sam Merulla noted on Twitter that one of his relatives living downtown near Barton Street used to have four chickens, and he was quite fond of them. What does it matter what people want them for?

One or two chickes does not a farm make. Nor do they make any more noise or mess than one or two "large dogs" (or those small yappy dogs...ugh...why won't they just shut up).

I'd rather live next door to one hen than to a German Shepard.

P.S. Raccoons are everywhere, most people just don't see them very often.

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted December 05, 2012 at 12:55:17 in reply to Comment 83475

How many eggs do the armies of neighbourhood cats produce in order to earn their status as legally allowed pets?

And i'm not talking about the little brown eggs that I have to dig out of my tomato patch daily.

Or are the owners raising them for cat soup?

Who gets to decide that one animal is more suitable than another? You? Terry Whitehead?

You can visit cats and dogs on farms too.

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted December 08, 2012 at 13:00:43 in reply to Comment 83487

As usual any 'animal topic' brings out the Haters. (see above 2 comments) I'd rather live next door to a kennel of Great Danes, than either one of these people.
Hamilton has one of the highest rate 'kill shelters' in Canada, but I guess we can blame owners for that, or should we just follow the usual course & blame the animals? Hamilton is "famous" through out Canada, & as usual, it's for all the wrong reasons.

Hamilton was 'considering' The Calgary model for animal control, but as usual it backed off, & as usual allowed the animal haters to carry the day @ City Hall.
I wish City hall would stop 'considering things', like backyard chicken, the Calgary Model, LRT, walkable streets, & bike friendly streets. It just gets our hopes up.
Maybe just say, "We are sorry. We can't get out collective brains past 1952. A modern city is just not for us, or for You. Fah-ged-abow-dit!"

I'd also like to mention again that Licenses for your Pot Bellied Pig are available at animal control.
As far as i know, the City doesn't have many of the restrictions on these squat 100 lb. to 200 lb + pigs that are on dogs & cats in Hamilton. I wonder how many complaints have arisen for these pets? None, that I've ever heard of.
Maybe if we all bought 'chicken licenses', City Hall might see it as another cash 'cow'?

"Chick & Ducks & Geese better scurry, when i take you out in my surrey.." (A Pop song from the 1950's)

This info is from a pet owners guide to purchasing a Pot Bellied pig:
*****************

A full grown Vietnamese potbellied pig can be anywhere from 100 to 250 pounds and not be overweight, and is still considered a miniature potbellied pig. The average size seems to be 120 to 150 pounds but just like humans, pigs do come in various sizes and weights.
********
Here is the City of Hamilton animal licensing section for Pot Bellied Pigs. New pigs are not allowed in the City, but those living here previously (& licensed ) may stay.
*********************
3. Vietnamese Pot Bellied Pig Licences
Vietnamese Pot Bellied Pigs are only permitted in rural areas. Any Vietnamese Pot Bellied Pig Owners that legally had their pigs (licensed) prior to February 8, 2012 are permitted to keep their pigs, but may not obtain any new pigs.

Permitted Vietnamese Pot Bellied Pigs are required to have a City of Hamilton Licence in accordance with By-law 12-031
*************

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted December 05, 2012 at 10:58:43 in reply to Comment 83475

Sorry, but that's not how good governance works. If you want to ban something, you need to demonstrate a significant risk of harm that cannot be mitigated by reasonable regulation.

There is no evidence that a small number of backyard chickens poses any more risk of harm than other household pets, like cats and dogs.

Nor is there any evidence from other jurisdictions that currently allow backyard chickens that the number of complaints will increase.

Public Health confirmed that the modest public health impacts can be mitigated with a reasonable by-law, just as the modest public health impacts of owning other kinds of pets are being mitigated with reasonable by-laws.

In short, there is no sound, evidence-based reason not to support a by-law regulating the ownership of a small number of backyard chickens - and the proposal in question was only to establish a limited pilot project in wards 1 and 2.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2012-12-05 11:04:49

Permalink | Context

By NoChicken (anonymous) | Posted December 05, 2012 at 12:14:37 in reply to Comment 83476

Some things are just a common sense, not worth spending on studies. If chickens are pets, no problem, they are cute and no harm. But how you explain your kids that your neighbour keeps them to eat? Is this animal cruelty and how to regulate these mini farms then ?
A little different case. We had a tenant single mother who had 2 rabbits, large shepherd dog and a cat with 5 kittens. Her own belongings were kept in boxes and garbage bags.
It's a beautiful victorian house, with all the crown mouldings, medalions, turned into a stinky mini-farm.
When she left our common sense was to restore it back to a beautiful place.
Because this is designed as a city, not for farms.

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted December 08, 2012 at 13:14:50 in reply to Comment 83481

You had a tenant with too many animals, & probably some sort of mental problem, since she had not unpacked her belongings.
The same worst case situations keep being brought up in all the arguments.
Not everyone is an animal hoarder. Not everyone is irresponsible.
If we applied these "What ifs" to automobile licenses, we'd cut the gridlock to nil.

If you take toddlers to the supermarket, they certainly Will Ask, "How did all these dead animals get here." I know mine asked at around at year & a 1/2 of age, & then refused to eat meat at all for years after.)

Permalink | Context

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted December 05, 2012 at 15:15:56 in reply to Comment 83481

It's not "common sense" that hens should be outlawed - many cities permit them and regulate them. They obviously don't see this as a waste.

A neighbour of ours has a coop full of birds (either pigeons or doves). Is that a farm? Does he keep them to eat? (Squab anyone?) I don't know, and I don't care, because they don't seem to be presenting a nuisance to anyone, and they're well cared for.

Although I'm starting to wonder if he's violating some bylaw...

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted December 05, 2012 at 12:32:20 in reply to Comment 83481

But how you explain your kids that your neighbour keeps them to eat?

How do you explain to your kids that the meat they see in grocery stores comes from animals that were killed? Different people come to different ethical conclusions about the killing of animals for food, but that is hardly an argument against keeping backyard chickens.

In any case, backyard chickens are generally kept for eggs, not meat.

Is this animal cruelty

It is already illegal to commit acts of cruelty to animals and the matter of definition, enforcement and penalties is already in place.

how to regulate

That would be the proposed by-law to regulate the ownership of backyard chickens.

these mini farms then ?

A small number of hens in a small coop is no more a "mini farm" than a vegetable garden is a "mini farm". What makes a farm a farm is the scale of the activity.

A little different case.

It is already illegal to keep nine pets in a residence. Your anecdote, while unfortunate and likely frustrating for you, is strictly irrelevant to the matter of whether a responsible resident should be allowed to keep a small number of backyard chickens in a regulated manner.

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted December 08, 2012 at 13:34:59 in reply to Comment 83483

They are running a documentary tonight on the horrible conditions that hogs are raised in.

Many other doc's have shown the awful conditions that battery (laying) hens have to endure in their short (less than 11 month lives)

Living in a back yard would be so much better in terms of just living (& dieing) conditions for chickens.

If you want to talk "Cruelty", check how your supermarket eggs are obtained!

Permalink | Context

By NoChicken (anonymous) | Posted December 05, 2012 at 13:06:41 in reply to Comment 83483

The kids should grow enough before you explain where the meat comes from.
Chickens killed right behind the fence a different story.
The whole farm regulation rules should come with it.
Or just ask yourself is it a city house or a farm house as it will be a farming in smaller scale.
9 pet tenant came with the building that we bought. Took a lots of determination and $$ to save this house from being a farm (in the middle of the city).
If you are in such a need, grow more expensive berries, nuts, etc., so you save for a few eggs to buy.
There are other alternatives to save on eggs or make more $$.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted December 05, 2012 at 13:17:04 in reply to Comment 83492

The kids should grow enough before you explain where the meat comes from.

That's a personal decision that has nothing to with whether people should be allowed to keep a small number of backyard chickens.

Chickens killed right behind the fence a different story.

This is hyperbole. Keeping a couple of backyard hens is no more running a slaughterhouse than keeping cats or dogs, and a reasonable by-law to regulate chicken ownership will also regulate the conditions under which an animal can be killed.

The whole farm regulation rules should come with it.

It should be regulated based on mitigating the actual risks, as the Public Health department recommended.

Or just ask yourself is it a city house or a farm house as it will be a farming in smaller scale.

Keeping a few chickens is no more "farming in smaller scale" than keeping a vegetable garden. Your "mini farm" analogy is an irrelevant distraction.

9 pet tenant came with the building that we bought. Took a lots of determination and $$ to save this house from being a farm (in the middle of the city).

A house with too many pets is not a farm, it is simply a house with too many pets. Again, the matter of people who keep a large number of pets is strictly irrelevant to the proposal to allow responsible ownership of a small number of chickens.

If you are in such a need, grow more expensive berries, nuts, etc., so you save for a few eggs to buy.

You are making assumptions about the reasons why someone would want to own a chicken. In any case, you have not provided any reasonable grounds on which to restrict an individual's right to keep a small number of chickens responsibly.

There are other alternatives to save on eggs or make more $$.

There are alternatives to most activities, but if an activity is not harmful, it should not be prohibited. That's the bottom line: unless a real and significant harm can be shown, there is no justification to ban the responsible ownership of a small number of chickens.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Sigma Cub (anonymous) | Posted December 05, 2012 at 15:39:49

Council be damned. I'm going platypus. (Better portion control and the venom will put off municipal interlopers.)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By randomguy (anonymous) | Posted December 06, 2012 at 09:58:05

Actually considering the high cost of milk because of Canada's dairy quota system, urban cows would probably save people a lot of money.

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted December 08, 2012 at 13:29:34 in reply to Comment 83539

Goats are better! (sort of a mini-compact cow) More milk on less food, & you can get them to jump up to a convenient height for milking.
If you raise Angora Goats, just clip them like a Poodle, & no one will know the difference. :P

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By SCRAP (anonymous) | Posted December 08, 2012 at 20:09:09

One housing topic that people do not talk about is the housing given to those who are the most vulnerable in our community, those who have trustees or a public guardian.

I have to ask my self about the morals and ethics of the many who work in this industry, along with those who work in the so called do gooders organizations, that place vulnerable people into hellholes.

You can make up all the legisaltion in the world, and even enact it but if enforcement of the rules is not followed thru, then we find too many of our vulnerable, left with no housing if they dare to complain.

There is a lot that needs to be exposed to public scrutiny!



Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds