Municipal Election 2014

Eisenberger Elected Mayor, All Incumbents Re-Elected

Former mayor Fred Eisenberger will return to office this December after winning with 39.9 percent of the vote.

By Ryan McGreal
Published October 28, 2014

Fred Eisenberger is Hamilton's next mayor.

Outgoing Mayor Bob Bratina shares a word with Mayor-elect Fred Eisenberger (Image Credit: Jason Leach)
Outgoing Mayor Bob Bratina shares a word with Mayor-elect Fred Eisenberger (Image Credit: Jason Leach)

Eisenberger won tonight's election with 39.9 percent of votes cast. Brad Clark came in second place with 31.5 percent and Brian McHattie came in third place with 20.4 percent.

(Note that all results are unofficial until confirmed by the City Clerk.)

Mayoral Votes
Candidate Votes Percent
Fred EISENBERGER 39.93% 49,020 39.93%
Brad CLARK 31.53% 38,706 31.53%
Brian McHATTIE 20.38% 25,020 20.38%
Michael BALDASARO 2.87% 3,518 2.87%
Crystal LAVIGNE 1.56% 1,910 1.56%
Ejaz BUTT 1.29% 1,579 1.29%
Mike CLANCY 821 0.67%
Michael A. PATTISON 763 0.62%
Nick IAMONICO 444 0.36%
Ricky TAVARES 428 0.35%
Warrand FRANCIS 278 0.23%
Phil RYERSON 269 0.22%
Total 122,756 100.00%

Eisenberger was mayor from 2006 to 2010 after beating incumbent Larry Di Ianni by just 452 votes. Di Ianni had just pleaded guilty to six charges of violating the Municipal Elections Act by accepting campaign donations in excess of legal limits.

In 2010, Eisenberger lost his re-election bid to Bob Bratina, who ran on a bare-bones platform but enjoyed strong name recognition from his years as a football announcer and radio personality.

This time around, Eisenberger is the candidate with a minimal platform but strong name recognition. He ran an affable campaign that avoided controversy and sought to strike a middle ground on contentious issues - like the city's Light Rail Transit (LRT) plan, which Eisenberger supports but wants to see reviewed by a citizen panel.

In all, 124,550 people cast a vote for mayor out of 366,124 eligible voters, for a turnout of just 34 percent - significantly lower than 2010's turnout of 40 percent.

The City has also published poll by poll results for election data junkies.

Four New Faces

Ward 1

In Ward 1 (West Hamilton), Aidan Johnson (see his RTH candidate page) won with 34.7 percent of the vote, followed by Sandy Shaw with 27.4 percent and Jason Allen with 12 percent.

Ward 1 Votes
Candidate Votes Percent
Aidan JOHNSON 34.69% 3030 34.69%
Sandy SHAW 27.36% 2390 27.36%
Jason ALLEN 12.02% 1050 12.02%
Tony GRECO 11.72% 1024 11.72%
Brian LEWIS 7.34% 641 7.34%
Ira ROSEN 6.87% 600 6.87%

Ward 1 was vacated when its current Councillor, Brian McHattie, decided to run for mayor.

Ward 3

In Ward 3 (Hamilton Centre), Matthew Green (see his RTH candidate page) took a commanding lead in a crowd of 15 contenders with 40.7 percent of votes cast. Ralph Agostino came second with 17.5 percent and Drina Omazic came third with 11.8 percent.

Ward 3 Votes
Candidate Votes Percent
Matthew GREEN 40.72% 2852 40.72%
Ralph AGOSTINO 17.55% 1229 17.55%
Drina OMAZIC 11.78% 825 11.78%
Mark DiMILLO 7.50% 525 7.50%
Sean GIBSON 5.15% 361 5.15%
Tim SIMMONS 4.77% 334 4.77%
Bob ASSADOURIAN 4.71% 330 4.71%
Brian KELLY 2.46% 172 2.46%
Maria ANASTASIOU 1.33% 93 1.33%
Byron Wayne MILLETTE 1.04% 73 1.04%
Eva JOHN 55 0.79%
Carlos PINHO 51 0.73%
Victor MEJIA 42 0.60%
Bernie SZAJKOWSKI 41 0.59%
Jol HESS 21 0.30%

Incumbent Ward 3 councillor Bernie Morelli died earlier this year. Former Mayor Bob Morrow sat in as an appointed councillor and agreed that he would not run for re-election.

Ward 9

In Ward 9 (Stoney Creek), Doug Conley (see his RTH candidate page) won with 26.2 percent of the vote. Nancy Fiorentino came second with 20.7 percent and Cam Galindo came third with 19.4 percent.

Ward 9 Votes
Candidate Votes Percent
Doug CONLEY 26.17% 1750 26.17%
Nancy FIORENTINO 20.66% 1381 20.66%
Cam GALINDO 19.35% 1294 19.35%
Marie ROBBINS 15.90% 1063 15.90%
Geraldine McMULLEN 10.20% 682 10.20%
Tone MARRONE 2.90% 194 2.90%
Frank RUKAVINA 2.83% 189 2.83%
Lee AUSTIN 1.21% 81 1.21%
Christopher ROSSER 52 0.78%

Ward 9 was vacated when its current Councillor, Brad Clark, decided to run for mayor.

Ward 13

In Ward 13 (Dundas), Arlene Vanderbeek (see her RTH candidate page) won with 42.6 percent of the vote. Toby Yull came second with 24.4 percent and Rick Court came third with 15.8 percent.

Ward 13 Votes
Candidate Votes Percent
Arlene VANDERBEEK 42.56% 3468 42.56%
Toby YULL 24.40% 1988 24.40%
Rick COURT 15.77% 1285 15.77%
Danya SCIME 6.33% 516 6.33%
Marc Rhéal RISDALE 4.87% 397 4.87%
Mark COULL 3.47% 283 3.47%
Pamela MITCHELL 1.01% 82 1.01%
Kevin NORTON 77 0.94%
Christeen URQUHART 53 0.65%

Ward 13 was vacated when its current Councillor, Russ Powers, decided not to run again. Vanderbeek served as Powers' executive assistant.

All Incumbents Re-Elected

Every incumbent councillor who ran for re-election won by a large margin.

Ward 2

In 2010, Jason Farr won Ward 2 (Downtown) with just 21 percent of the vote, followed closely by Matt Jelly with 18.7 percent. This time, Farr took a commanding 66.4 percent of votes cast.

Terri Wallis came a distant second with 12.8 percent, and Kristina Heaton came third with 10.7 percent.

Ward 2 Votes
Candidate Votes Percent
Jason FARR 66.35% 4078 66.35%
Terri WALLIS 12.79% 786 12.79%
Kristina HEATON 10.71% 658 10.71%
John VAIL 6.07% 373 6.07%
Ed DALLAS 2.33% 143 2.33%
Ryan HENRY 1.76% 108 1.76%

Ward 4

In Ward 4 (East Hamilton), Sam Merulla mopped up 82.5 percent of the votes. No other candidate even broke double digits in percent of votes cast.

Ward 4
Candidate Votes Percent
Sam MERULLA 82.49% 5654 82.49%
Tina WHALEN 8.21% 563 8.21%
Lorna MOREAU 5.94% 407 5.94%
John LAURIE 3.36% 230 3.36%

Ward 5

Chad Collins retained Ward 5 (Redhill) with 71.6 percent of votes cast. David Brown came second with 13.2 percent and George Rusich came a very close third with just one vote fewer than Brown.

Ward 5 Votes
Candidate Votes Percent
Chad COLLINS 71.58% 6138 71.58%
David BROWN 13.22% 1134 13.22%
George RUSICH 13.21% 1133 13.21%
Larry STORM 1.98% 170 1.98%

Ward 6

Tom Jackson dominated Ward 6 (East Mountain) with 80.8 percent of the vote, followed by Dan Rodrigues with 11.5 percent and Brad Olynchuk with 7.6 percent.

Ward 6 Votes
Candidate Votes Percent
Tom JACKSON 80.83% 7886 80.83%
Dan RODRIGUES 11.53% 1125 11.53%
Brad OLYNCHUK 7.64% 745 7.64%

Ward 7

Scott Duvall held onto Ward 7 (Central Mountain) with an overwhelming 79.1 percent of votes cast. Keith Beck came second with 12.4 percent and Greg Burghall came third with 8.46 percent.

Ward 7 Votes
Candidate Votes Percent
Scott DUVALL 79.12% 9956 79.12%
Keith BECK 12.41% 1562 12.41%
Greg BURGHALL 8.46% 1065 8.46%

Ward 8

Terry Whitehead retained Ward 8 (West Mountain) with 76.5 percent of the vote. His only competitor, Joshua Peter Czeringa, took the remaining 23.5 percent.

Ward 8 Votes
Candidate Votes Percent
Terry WHITEHEAD 76.54% 9364 76.54%
Joshua Peter CZERNIGA 23.46% 2870 23.46%

Ward 10

In Ward 10 (Stoney Creek), Maria Pearson held onto her seat with "only" 58 percent of the vote. Teresa DiFalco of The Hamiltonian website came a strong second with 33.9 percent.

Ward 10 Votes
Candidate Votes Percent
Maria PEARSON 58.03% 4090 58.03%
Teresa DiFALCO 33.91% 2390 33.91%
Luana YACHETTI 8.06% 568 8.06%

Ward 11

In 2010, Brenda Johnson edged out then-incumbent Dave Mitchell in Ward 11 (Glanbrook, Winona) by just 245 votes. This time, she dominated the ward with 83.5 percent of the vote, followed by Vincenzo Rigitano with the other 16.5 percent.

Ward 11 Votes
Candidate Votes Percent
Brenda JOHNSON 83.45% 7873 83.45%
Vincenzo RIGITANO 16.55% 1561 16.55%

Ward 12

In Ward 12 (Ancaster), Lloyd Ferguson held onto his seat with 78.8 percent of the vote. John F. F. Iachelli came second with 7.8 percent and Grace Bryson came third with 7 percent.

Ward 12 Votes
Candidate Votes Percent
Lloyd FERGUSON 78.75% 7313 78.75%
John F. F. IACHELLI 7.83% 727 7.83%
Grace BRYSON 7.00% 650 7.00%
Anthony NICHOLL 6.42% 596 6.42%

Ward 14

In 2010, Robert Pasuta was acclaimed in Ward 14 (Wentworth) as the only candidate. This time, he won against two opponents with a commanding 85.4 percent of the vote. Scott Stewart (not the former general manager of Public Works) came second with 10.4 percent and Steven Knowles came third with 4 percent.

Ward 14 Votes
Candidate Votes Percent
Robert PASUTA 85.38% 3451 85.38%
Scott STEWART 10.42% 421 10.42%
Steven KNOWLES 4.21% 170 4.21%

Ward 15

In Ward 15 (Flamborough), Judi Partridge retained her seat with 69.2 percent of the vote. Neil Bos came second with the other 30.8 percent.

Ward 15 Votes
Candidate Votes Percent
Judi PARTRIDGE 69.23% 3879 69.23%
Neil BOS 30.77% 1724 30.77%

The New Council

The new Council will begin its four-year term on December 1, 2014.

Next Council
Position Winner
Mayor Fred Eisenberger
Ward 1 Aidan Johnson
Ward 2 Jason Farr
Ward 3 Matthew Green
Ward 4 Sam Merulla
Ward 5 Chad Collins
Ward 6 Tom Jackson
Ward 7 Scott Duvall
Ward 8 Terry Whitehead
Ward 9 Doug Conley
Ward 10 Maria Pearson
Ward 11 Brenda Johnson
Ward 12 Lloyd Ferguson
Ward 13 Arlene Vanderbeek
Ward 14 Robert Pasuta
Ward 15 Judi Partridge

Public School Board

The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board will have some new faces around the Trustee table as some incumbents decided not to run for re-election.

HWDSB Trustees
Ward Winner
Ward 1 and 2 Christine Bingham
Ward 3 Larry Pattison
Ward 4 Ray Mulholland
Ward 5 Todd White
Ward 6 Kathy Archer
Ward 7 Dawn Danko
Ward 8 Wes Hicks
Ward 9 and 10 Jeff Beattie
Ward 11 and 12 Alex Johnstone
Ward 13 and 14 Greg Van Geffen
Ward 15 Penny Deathe

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.

68 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 00:03:47

Remember when?

raisethehammer.org/article/1218/hamilton_elects_bratina_as_mayor_re-elects_nearly_all_incumbent_councillors

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonBrian (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 08:40:29

What the hell is it going to take to engage all the voters who stayed home? Why do we continue to re-elect people who are content to let Hamilton idle on in the stopped lane?

Man, I am heavily disappointed today. Even in 2010, my choice for ward councillor was elected. Not this year.

Permalink | Context

By ItJustIs (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 09:49:28 in reply to Comment 105677

"What the hell is it going to take to engage all the voters who stayed home?"

Please see comment further down the page.

Permalink | Context

By because (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 09:23:36 in reply to Comment 105677

Because unfortunately, too many old farts read the Spec only. RTH needs to go into print.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 16:50:21 in reply to Comment 105683

I volunteered on McHattie's campaign. Spoke to hundreds of people at doors, fairs, and on the phone over the last several months. Most of the older people I spoke to don't consume any local media at all. They didn't even know there was an election, let alone who was running. I wish they read the spec only. They'd be far better informed than they are now.

Permalink | Context

By Joshua (registered) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 20:31:16 in reply to Comment 105709

Maybe we need to revive community newsletters or have community spots at local places where people actually gather, such as malls (if they weren't private property, I suppose).

Permalink | Context

By because (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 09:18:02 in reply to Comment 105709

Some of the many of those old farts have lost their vision entirely so they don't read the Spec either.

Permalink | Context

By ShowRespect (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 21:13:19 in reply to Comment 105730

Stop calling old people old farts.

Permalink | Context

By Um (anonymous) | Posted October 30, 2014 at 09:13:40 in reply to Comment 105745

Since we're being politically correct, the term is "seniors", not old people. Thank you.

Permalink | Context

By because (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 21:20:31 in reply to Comment 105745

The new mayor is an old fart, too. That's why the other old farts voted for him.

Permalink | Context

By lowwater (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 05:48:52 in reply to Comment 105709

What was the strategy for getting the suburbs to vote for McHattie? Not once did I get a call or a door knocker in my neighbourhood on the mountain. In fact, not a single candidate came to my door. I got several robocalls from the Clark campaign, and a mailer for the incumbent councilor and another for the incumbent trustee. I was extremely disappointed in the apparent lack of interest in getting to know me as a constituent or to know them as a candidate. Maybe that's why only 1 in 3 people gets out to vote.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 30, 2014 at 11:58:01 in reply to Comment 105723

McHattie covered far more ground than the other two campaigns. He knocked on doors at least a few hours every day from June on as part of his 100 day tour. I personally canvassed with him in Waterdown, Dundas, Ancaster, and Stoney Creek, and canvassed Dundas and Ancaster on my own, and I was only one of countless volunteers.

In addition to door-to-door canvassing, we did extensive phone canvassing as well. Starting in September phone canvassers were calling day and night. I personally made 100's of calls, and I was only one of dozens of phone canvassers. The other two campaigns didn't have this kind of volunteer capacity which is why they resorted to robocalls.

I am very sorry that we didn't make it to your street. It pains me to hear this. We tried so hard, but it's a big city and even a campaign with a big ground game like McHattie's can't begin to cover it all.

Unfortunately, one of the many disappointing lessons of this election is that robocalls are more effective than traditional boots on the ground. Expect to get even less personal contact from political campaigns in the future.

Comment edited by highwater on 2014-10-30 11:59:44

Permalink | Context

By Anon (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 09:13:17 in reply to Comment 105723

Me me me me me. Self centred much?

Permalink | Context

By lowwater (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 16:22:57 in reply to Comment 105729

Yes, it's all about me. That's exactly why I posted. My example couldn't be indicitive of the city as a whole, right? Shut up.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 08:50:13 in reply to Comment 105677

Quite baffling that we continue to send the same crowd to city hall. I'm certainly pleased to see 60% of voters chose a mayoral candidate in support of LRT, but at the Ward level only Ward 3 seems to have bucked the trend. Now, some incumbents like Merulla, Pearson, Ferguson, Pasuta, Farr etc have done a good job recently. But the wards that were open pretty much just elected clones of the previous councillor.

More townhomes across the countryside and boarded up streets in the central city sits well with voters evidently.

Permalink | Context

By dissection (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 05:51:05 in reply to Comment 105678

"Quite baffling that we continue to send the same crowd to city hall."

No, not really. That's how municipal (maybe all) politics work. Name recognition is everything, their track record completely secondary. It's more surprising when the electorate bounces an incumbent.

"I'm certainly pleased to see 60% of voters chose a mayoral candidate in support of LRT"

Again, no. LRT was a wedge issue but not the defining issue. Well, here at RTH it was, but not anywhere else.

"More townhomes across the countryside and boarded up streets in the central city sits well with voters evidently."

A bit of flair for the dramatic, no?

Permalink | Context

By John Neary (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 10:00:14 in reply to Comment 105678

Matthew Green is not Bernie Morelli. Arlene VanderBeek is not Russ Powers.

Oh, and Fred Eisenberger is not Bob Bratina.

I strongly supported McHattie, but I can't see this result as anything but a step forward.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 30, 2014 at 12:05:06 in reply to Comment 105687

And Aidan Johnson is not Mr. Tony, who was a genuine threat.

I'm still gutted to be losing McHattie's voice on council, but apart from that, not a bad outcome at all.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 11:32:59 in reply to Comment 105687

agreed on Matthew and Fred. I was a massive Fred supporter last time. Would have been again had it not been for Brian's run.
From what I've heard and read, Arlene is the female version of Russ and Conley is the old/new version of Clark. (Conley was on Stoney Creek council waaaaaay back in the day).

Other than Green and Fred, this council is identical to the last one. But you're right, those are 2 huge steps forward, especially at the mayoral level.

Permalink | Context

By John Neary (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 17:00:49 in reply to Comment 105691

Arlene's platform is fairly progressive other than being lukewarm-to-skeptical on LRT. Although to some extent that night just be preaching to the crowd in Dundas. I think she will be a step up from Russ Powers, if not a dramatic one.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 14:54:17 in reply to Comment 105691

Also worth noting considering the tremendous power of incumbents: Bratina and Powers endorsed Clark. Clark lost even with the current mayor firmly behind him, and Clark placed 3rd in Dundas. McHattie only won 3 wards: 1,2 and Dundas. So Powers' endorsement was completely ignored as well. Both of these developments are a very positive.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By bvbborussia (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 08:52:30

Same old, same old. Don't expect much change.

Permalink | Context

By Joshua (registered) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 20:40:37 in reply to Comment 105679

If we abandon politics in the form it's exercised--voting every four years, no term recalls, &c.--as you seem to suggest, what's left but being the change you want to see?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mike Goodwin (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 08:57:27

I am curious to know the results based on eligible voters not just actual turnout. I would be surprised if any candidate surpassed 20%.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 08:58:06

I believe it's the electoral system and ward boundaries since amalgamation. As long as we have our wards divided up as they are, we will continue to send our strongly supported incumbent councilors to city hall at the expense of the city as a whole. They've figured that out a long time ago, and pander to their tiny little enclaves. So when people are pissed at the neglected and dysfunctional city, it's the mayor that takes the blame and replaced at election time.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Crispy (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 09:00:56

I'd like to see the wards scrapped and a move to an at large system. Currently each counselor is only interested in appeasing his/her ward and getting re-elected, rather than the common good of the entire city.

Permalink | Context

By Inhocmark (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 09:29:08 in reply to Comment 105682

I disagree Cripsy, A big city needs local representation primarily to look after issues at a local level that may get ignored in an at large system. A perfect example of this was a traffic issue we had up in Ward 15 where due to the way Waterdown is being developed a wider single car residential street was being used as if were an 80km/h primary road. Our councillor took the lead in addressing the issue and we've seen tangible traffic calming measures implemented.

I have zero confidence that an at large system would address local need within wards.

There is an issue where voters who do decide to engage do so with limited interest or knowledge in the issues and who they are voting for besides the name. While some incumbents do deserve their re-election, I do not think if you really got down to it, all of them deserved to come back.

Unfortunately I think it will take something drastic and awful to happen in our city before the general populace stands up and takes notice.

The other concern is that our local media is severely lacking. We're one of the largest cities in Canada and our local paper is completely useless, our CBC presence is limited and the only real television station in the Market is more concerned with their simulcasting than they are in any real local engagement. You have to work very hard to get the information you require to be an educated voter and most people are not willing to do that.

Permalink | Context

By j.servus (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 10:20:17 in reply to Comment 105684

That is an inspiring story about how your Ward Councillor was able to get traffic calming measures implemented. I live in Ward 3, which is crisscrossed with streets used as 80 km/h primary roads, right through the middle of residential neighborhoods and streetwall commerce. When our new Councillor, the indomitable Matthew Green, moves to calm them, I hope you will write your Councillor and tell her you expect her to support him. Because, without support of concerned citizens like you, I have zero confidence that the ward system will not continue to sacrifice inner city neighborhoods to the pleasure and convenience of residents in the outer wards. Right now, in our wards, the ward system is PREVENTING us from addressing local needs within our wards.

Comment edited by j.servus on 2014-10-28 10:28:09

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 11:38:17 in reply to Comment 105689

exactly right. We've been asking for speed humps for years on Florence, Peter, Napier etc.... our councillor has worked hard to get staff to include our area for traffic calming, but still no humps after 2+ years. I have family on a Mountain residential street off Upper James that also suffers from the same cut-through traffic as our hood. They had ONE community meeting this summer to present a request for speed humps, and they were approved the next month.

Ditto for Upper Stoney Creek, I think on Highland Rd. Ancaster has seen massive traffic calming on Rousseau and Wilson in their downtown. Yet, all these same councillors oppose measures on MY residential street and others in the lower city when we request them. I would vote for de-amalgamation tomorrow if given a legit chance. And not a structure that goes back to the regional days where the inner city was subsidizing the suburbs. A true deamalgamation where the suburbs can go it alone, and we keep all of our industrial and commercial tax base in the old city.

Permalink | Context

By Inhocmark (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 11:36:49 in reply to Comment 105689

How are you being prevented? My Councillor took the data collected from concerned Ward residents, created a meeting so that other people in the area could add their two cents, did all the mailings about the meeting from her office, advertised it on her social media platforms and through the local free paper and then chaired the meeting. She then took all the data and got a few simple solutions in place to try to impact it (some plastic poles near the park to make the road feel 'smaller' and another 4-Way stop sign). From start to finish this was an entirely community generated process where impacted locals liaised with our councillor who did what was in her powers within the scope of the budget (so no larger capital projects like a street light or concrete medians) to address the issue as best as she could. And I'm sure in 6 months I'll have another letter from her office about another meeting following up with those people impacted to see what if any progress has been made and if at that point it needs to be escalated into the city wide process that controls these things.

I am pretty positive Matthew Green did not need to be involved in the measures that were taken nor would Judi Partridge need to be involved in Ward 3. And if Matthew Green is not addressing the issues that are important to your Ward in a matter that satisfies you, then by all means next time elect somebody who will.

I like the fact my Councillor lives in my Ward and her life is impacted by the same things that impact my life. She is active in our community and has a good understanding of what is working and what isn't. I do not agree with all her positions (namely transit where she is myopic) but the point is she represents us because she is us, the same way I would hope all councillors represent their Wards.

The Ward system acts as a buffer to protect the interest of citizens whose best interests are not always represented by the mayor's office or the inner city. You can look at me with contempt for that statement or judge me based on where I choose to raise my family but ultimately I deserve, just live every resident of this city to have somebody looking out for me.

This isn't to say I do not see the bigger picture and understand that the key to a strong healthy Hamilton lies in our lower city, but that should not come at the expense of completely abandoning my own neighborhoods to at large councillors who have no connection or obligation to the voters in their area.

Permalink | Context

By j.servus (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 13:51:45 in reply to Comment 105692

I think we agree on a lot here. One of the reasons we really love Matthew Green is that he not only lives in this ward and operates his business in this ward, he is also very present in the ward. He is at all the community events, neighborhood association meetings, etc. And we're very hopeful that he can be an effective advocate for the poorest and most neglected Ward in Hamilton.

The process you describe is a good process, and it works well if the Councillors in the other wards don't interfere. But what happens down here is that the other Councillors do interfere. For example, if we want to convert Wentworth to two-way--because it is frankly ridiculous to have three lanes one direction for less than one lane worth of traffic, and meanwhile it creates all kinds of bad side effects like cut-through traffic on residential streets, etc.--someone like Lloyd Ferguson says, "Hey, we all drive down there, this affects my constituents as much as yours. And anyway, why are we spending a lot of money to convert this street, which works perfectly well for Ancaster drivers, when we're struggling to pave roads and sidewalks?" And that's the end of that.

Wentworth was approved for two-way conversion in 2001. How's that for forward thinking!

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 28, 2014 at 12:10:43 in reply to Comment 105692

Lower city councillors almost never interfere in the local street design decisions of outlying wards, but for some reason the suburban councillors tend to exercise a veto over local street design decisions of lower city wards. It's a bizarre double standard.

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 14:50:10 in reply to Comment 105695

Interesting the number of people here who have written about the issue of rat-running "cut through" car drivers.

This is a serious problem where I live in Ward 2, next to the "Herkimer Racetrack."

The cut-through car drivers can see the traffic light at James Street turn green all the way back as far as Durand Park. They know that in order to "beat the light" the cut-through car drivers are going to have to drive at 70-100 km/hr on this residential street. AND THEY DO!

Terrorizing children going to the park or to school. And terrorizing the elderly. And everyone else.

The amount of police enforcement of these terrorist criminals is approximately zero. I've never seen any, and I live here.

The solution is prevention of cut-through car driving by using Permeable Filters as Neighbourhood Connectors to limit through traffic to walking, cycling and public transit. In The Netherlands, this is the method used to eliminate cut-through car drivers from virtually every residential street. But it is not necessary to go that far to see effective examples. Here are two from Toronto. See:

http://g.co/maps/wkvnh

and

http://g.co/maps/qpkwe

It is very useful to zoom out at these links on Google Maps and see how they have been used strategically to eliminate cut-through car drivers from the local neighbourhood.

Toronto did it. We can too!

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 14:55:31 in reply to Comment 105704

Yes. We need to do this ASAP. The odd driver who thinks it's their God-given right to speed through everyone else's hood can deal with it. Every other city invests in safety and quality of life. It's time for us too as well.

Comment edited by jason on 2014-10-28 14:56:39

Permalink | Context

By DoubleStandard (anonymous) | Posted October 30, 2014 at 04:04:48 in reply to Comment 105706

Jason, that's unfair. In my neighbourhood (Rolston), we have a huge problem with cutthroughs from people trying to avoid traffic along the Linc, Garth, Mohawk and Upper James. Not to mention all the issues with the schools and rec centre. Where are the champions of this from the lower city to help us out up here???

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted October 30, 2014 at 12:28:25 in reply to Comment 105752

No one from the lower city is is going to oppose street calming if it is championed by the residents. I don't ever recall lower city councillors pushing for one-way conversions or higher speed limits to speed up traffic on the mountain or in Ancaster (which has a limit of 40km/h on most streets). But when lower city residents, backed by our councillors, request traffic calming in our neighbourhoods we are told by some councillors from elsewhere because our streets (unlike yours) are "for everyone".

And I'm sure RTH would be delighted to publish an article from a mountain resident or neighbourhood association describing dangerous street designs.

It is not a upper city versus lower city thing!

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-10-30 12:29:43

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 30, 2014 at 13:04:40 in reply to Comment 105765

And I'm sure RTH would be delighted to publish an article from a mountain resident or neighbourhood association describing dangerous street designs.

Like this one, for example? I've also written recently about dangerous street designs at Rymal and Upper Centennial, Stone Church Road, Mohawk Road and Highway 8 and Green Road.

I'm almost as tired of the downtown-baiting as I am of the double-standard that accompanies it.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted October 30, 2014 at 08:51:24 in reply to Comment 105752

Mountain residents are having success requesting calming. This example is right beside Rolston. Here is another.

The folks in the lower city are working very hard to improve their neighborhoods, and are being told No at almost every turn (although that's finally thawing somewhat). All the folks on the mountain had to do was survey their neighborhood, have a quick meeting, and get a Yes.

Have you or your neighbors actually done anything, and been told no? Or have you tried nothing at all, and are all out of ideas, waiting for your superman to swoop in from downtown?

Another thing I noticed, is that many supporters of the lower city LRT are delighted to see the whole BLAST network built, which gives more choices for the very routes you mention. Add all day GO, there, even more residents have more choices to avoid the Linc/403.

So long story short you have more champions for mountain traffic calming than you realize. Just pointing out that if there is a double standard, you have it backwards.

Permalink | Context

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 14:40:23 in reply to Comment 105695

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By Are you for real? (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 16:32:39 in reply to Comment 105702

We have lots of infrastructure built in other locations. You have to go the federal building every 5 years to get a passport renewed. Why is it that in order to shop for a car (every 10ish years), I have to go to the South Mountain? It may be that there are no car dealerships anywhere near downtown. In order to buy clothes, I have to drive to SoMo or go to another city altogether. I thought it was pretty obvious from Council debates, that the stadium wasn't built on the East Mountain because it was the worst location(ie, most expensive for taxpayers).

Permalink | Context

By For realsies (anonymous) | Posted October 30, 2014 at 04:03:13 in reply to Comment 105738

"Why is it that in order to shop for a car (every 10ish years), I have to go to the South Mountain?"

You don't. There's still car dealerships in the lower city, including both new and used ones. If you don't like it, you can travel out to the east end to find one. Further, why on earth would you need to buy a car? RTH regulars know you should be fine biking, walking, riding the bus, etc.

" In order to buy clothes, I have to drive to SoMo or go to another city altogether."

No you don't. Lots of retailers in Jackson Square, or any of the countless shops along Main, King, James, Barton, etc.

Your flimsy arguments don't hold up. Stop trolling.

Permalink | Context

By Are you for real (part 2)? (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 16:38:20 in reply to Comment 105738

It is also somewhat fantastic to imagine huge traffic jams at Bay and Main because there are now 3 new residential buildings and a couple of hotels, and a new medical building. We have been missing an entire lane on both Main St. and King St. near Hess village for 3 years, and there has been no traffic issues as a result of those closures. How does Toronto manage to accommodate traffic when they build 16,000 condo units/year?

Permalink | Context

By Anon (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 15:33:44 in reply to Comment 105702

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that was why we needed 5 lane one way thoroughfares.

Sure glad you were able to explain.

BTW, how would one get to Limeridge Mall? It must be quite inaccessible due to the lack of 5 lane one way streets to take you to it.

Permalink | Context

By Inhocmark (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 12:15:57 in reply to Comment 105695

I will defer to your knowledge on this and say that unless we're talking larger capital expenditures (which regardless of the Ward should be a city wide decision), no outside councillor should be able to interfere with very local issues like that.

You're right, it is a bizarre double standard.

Permalink | Context

By Anon (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 11:52:41 in reply to Comment 105692

Do you know how many streets in wards 1-3 were approved for conversion to two-way over a decade ago and have yet to be converted.

Strange isn't it?

Permalink | Context

By Anon (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 10:00:35 in reply to Comment 105684

And I would say that is the problem. A traffic issue in Ward 15 or 14 or.....anywhere "outside" of the city is an issue solely for that ward. Local solution developed and implemented. Voila. Everyone is happy. "Their" roads are now the way they want them to be.

Few people from outside the ward really care or have concern since they don't drive through there very often if at all.

Now make the traffic issue central. Say Wards 1 or 2. Local solution allowed? Not a chance. Just ask the Concillors from say Wards 8 or 12. Those roads belong to everybody.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ItJustIs (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 09:47:15

"Unfortunately I think it will take something drastic and awful to happen in our city before the general populace stands up and takes notice."

Uh...with all due respect...no.

In fact, precisely the opposite.

It will take something concerted and well thought out, something requiring some vision and patience and an enormous amount of effort...although not the energies that 'something awful and drastic' would require.

Just because the solution is not readily apparent to the average resident, or, more pointedly, to the frequenters of RTH, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but merely that mass blinkers have been in place since forever.

An explanation of to what I'm referring is available to RTH; all that's required is contact from the Editor.

Permalink | Context

By Inhocmark (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 12:13:12 in reply to Comment 105685

The issue isn't that the solution is not readily apparent to the average resident, its that the average resident isn't even tuned in period. It requires something drastic (usually negative) to get voters engaged at all beyond a brief glance. We are an even smaller subsection of a small subsection of people who are engaged in politics. Heck, my sister votes against her interests all the time based on political TV ads...if she bothers to vote at all.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 12:52:31 in reply to Comment 105696

It requires something drastic (usually negative)

There seems to be some evidence of that ... Toronto's voter turnout was 60%, absolutely smashing records since amalgamation. Look at how drastic (politically in this case) the situation had to get before people woke up and realized their vote was very important. Everywhere else voter turnout was weak and in many cases declined.

Permalink | Context

By grassroots (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 12:37:25 in reply to Comment 105696

People are generally apathetic, if not plain ignorant of issues. Positive change requires door to door engagement. Neighbourhood leaders, talking to eachother. Turn off the television and radio as they don't have the people's interests at heart.

Permalink | Context

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 11:21:29 in reply to Comment 105685

I don't know how much you've explored RTH but you should visit this page

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 14:34:56

Vaguely reminiscent of the 2003 election, which saw two incumbents unseated, two new councillors appointed through open races and a new mayor.

Bittersweet memory, too, since that contest might have given us a Mayor Christopherson as well as the McHattie/Horwath one-two punch.

Permalink | Context

By No (registered) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 05:54:53 in reply to Comment 105701

If the above were true, we'd be in way worse shape than we are today. The last thing Hamilton needs is a gang of NDP'ers running the show.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By freedom loving voters? (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2014 at 16:06:51

Somebody sent this around to Hamilton & Toronto media today--Question, how many of the people standing outside the funeral home in Hamilton the last several days, and at the Armoury for 'freedom', and for the young corporal who was murdered--well there's lots of murders by bad people in Canada every year, what about them--how many of them went out for 'freedom' and actual-ly voted yesterday in the city election?
Or too busy, or talking to TV people?

This 'question' isn't as unkind as it might look.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Personal decisions (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 07:41:23

People have the right to not exercise their right to vote, of course. It is a shame more people in the area didn't turn out to vote but that is their decision, we live in a democracy.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By flaws (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 09:56:37

The most qualified person to lead by any measure, McHattie without a doubt, did not win. Clearly the system doesn't work.

Permalink | Context

By zjones (anonymous) | Posted October 30, 2014 at 03:59:02 in reply to Comment 105732

jason, is that you?

Permalink | Context

By Crispy (registered) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 21:47:10 in reply to Comment 105732

Your boy lost fair and square. Get over yourself.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Analyst (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 12:54:33

Mr. McHattie can't blame lack of money or lack of organization for his loss. He can only blame his policies and his track record which didn't sell city-wide. It is dangerous to blame the voters as he did election night, when the problem is the candidate.

Permalink | Context

By McHattieSupporter (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 21:17:38 in reply to Comment 105733

Democracy is more about marketing than the qualities of those who aspire to be leaders. Otherwise, McHattie would have, should have won hands down. It's a damn shame.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 20:41:24 in reply to Comment 105733

C'mon Larry. Surely you can win with grace. Brian ran a dynamite campaign. Simply didn't have the name recognition. He was pure class the entire campaign. You guys ran a smart campaign and won. Feel free to congratulate the other guy with some class.

By the way, Brian's track record is something that folks should be pleading for in their neighbourhoods city-wide. Ward 1 is booming and is ground zero for young, educated migrants flocking from other cities. Down in your hood, business is apparently so weak, people can't even justify popping a quarter into a parking meter.

Permalink | Context

By z jones (registered) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 13:38:31 in reply to Comment 105733

Good old Larry, just can't resist can you buddy?

Permalink | Context

By zjones (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 16:25:11 in reply to Comment 105734

Brad, you've got to take the high road (or highway, or whatever other road plan you have) and not stoop to that level. It's unbecoming, even for you.

Permalink | Context

By z jones (registered) | Posted October 30, 2014 at 10:33:58 in reply to Comment 105737

Love it Lar, keep it coming.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Anon (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 17:16:34

No one came to see me either. No literature in my mailbox either. Didn't take it personally. Thankfully that interwebby thing came in handy.

Was able to find out all I needed to know and voted.

Suck it up princess.

Permalink | Context

By Unkn (anonymous) | Posted October 30, 2014 at 03:57:52 in reply to Comment 105740

I didn't take it personally either. But let's remember: it's not my job to go and do all the legwork. If they want my vote, they have to earn it. It shouldn't be expected that I will just vote for them and do all the heavy lifting to read their campaign material for them. Just talking with someone, informally while at the door or out on the street would be nice.

I was raised in Dundas. Every election I recall at least one candidate or at least someone from their campaign coming to our door. I've lived in downtown Hamilton and now up on the west mountain and have yet to see someone out knocking on doors. The only time I've met someone actually campaigning was when I was walking with my wife on Herkimer and was met by Matt Jelly, who was out campaigning, back in the fall of 2010.

Get the electorate engaged! Don't focus on the "safe" neighbourhoods where you know you've already got the vote. Go get the rest of the city involved and maybe they'll surprise you and get out to vote.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Freud (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2014 at 20:26:43

Who is zjones talking to? Voices in his head?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted November 17, 2014 at 00:25:13

Apparently the Spec's main reporter didn't bother reading the pre-election poll questions about LRT. No surprise, of course:

http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/503...

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