Connaught

Motion by Bratina to Study Connaught Proposal Very Carefully

By Ryan McGreal
Published September 25, 2009

Councillor Bob Bratina (Ward 2) has submitted the following motion for the September 30 council meeting:

Whereas certain details regarding the relationship between Grand Connaught Inc. and the City of Hamilton have only recently emerged,

And Whereas the Grand Connaught proposal for Affordable Housing also includes a significant Market rent component not covered by Provincial or Federal grants,

Therefore be it resolved

That staff report back to Council with information regarding the extent to which the City of Hamilton may be asked to participate in the market rent portion of the Grand Connaught affordable housing proposal, and whether any impediments exist which may affect the City's ability to extend incentives such as interest free loans, tax-rebates, etc. and whether any such impediments would imperil the successful completion of the project.

Asked to provide more context for this motion, Councillor Bratina sent the following statement to RTH:

I believe, in view of the last-minute revelations and the situation regarding 80 King William, that Council should have clear understanding of the whole project, who is involved, to what extent, and how the market rent portion will possibly engage City initiatives, as and the motion reads, whether there might be any impediments.

If so, should that not be forwarded to the Province as part of Council's submission? This should also be reviewed with the developer as soon as possible to allow response or remedy before difficulties arise between the Province and the City as to whether the project could proceed.

A simple but potentially difficult question would be who holds the mortgage on the properties and what is its status? On Downtown loans the City takes a second position. To whom?

On this last point, Councillor Bratina may be referring to the recent bankruptcy of the numbered company redevloping the old Spectator building at King William St. and Catharine St., in which the city will likely lose $700,000 in residential loans even though a new developer has offered to buy the property and take over the redevelopment.

(h/t to Jason Leach for noticing this motion on the city's website.)

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.

11 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted September 25, 2009 at 14:31:25

There's another elephant in the room here: the fact that Battaglia has stated publicly that the proposal will be rescinded if Hamilton gets and NHL team. The consortium has basically indicated that they will drop this proposal like a hot potato if they get a better offer. How can this revelation not factor into the city's (and the province's) oversight of this project?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By factoid (anonymous) | Posted September 26, 2009 at 16:23:25

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 Robert D (anonymous) | Posted September 26, 2009 at 22:04:57

factoid, I'm sure you win many a debate with that style of yours, however maybe you can provide some substance to your flashy insult? What don't you like about the motion?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By factoid (anonymous) | Posted September 27, 2009 at 11:03:09

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 Ryan (registered) - website | Posted September 28, 2009 at 08:30:58

factoid,

There is no place for personal insults in civil discussion. Your comment is baseless, unsupported by any evidence and does nothing to contribute to the debate. You are welcome to agree or disagree with Councillor Bratina on a given issue, but there is nothing to be gained by spurious personal attacks lobbed anonymously.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jonathan Dalton (registered) | Posted September 28, 2009 at 11:26:39

Well, my comment filter is working just great today.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By factoid (anonymous) | Posted September 28, 2009 at 18:05:33

Ryan:

Perhaps you should apply the same rules for all on this site. You obviously have just committed the most selective form of censorship. If that rule applies to me then you should take the time to go through the site and find the significant amount of personal attacks you have not attempted to correct.Bias editing I see? I expected more from this site but you have proven me wrong. Btw. Bratina is still a village idiot.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By grassroots are the way forward (registered) | Posted September 29, 2009 at 11:58:19

factoid writes: If that rule applies to me then you should take the time to go through the site and find the significant amount of personal attacks you have not attempted to correct

While I kind of agree with this statement in the sense, what does right does any one person have to call all those who struggle in low income as "filth".

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By zookeeper (registered) | Posted September 29, 2009 at 12:04:38

^^ Desperate troll is desperate. Ryan please don't feed it anymore. Factoid clearly has no interest in actual debate.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted September 30, 2009 at 09:30:48

Sorry, I just wanted to clarify one thing about this comment above:

http://raisethehammer.org/blog/1518#comm...

When Councillor Bratina posts comments on this site, he does so under his own name, not a pseudonym.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Curious (anonymous) | Posted October 02, 2009 at 16:12:39

Anyone know what happened with this motion?

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