Light Rail

Quotes From Mayor Bratina Following Spectator LRT Issue

By Graham Crawford
Published July 19, 2011

You'd think I would have learned my lesson after the Pan Am stadium debate. But no, stupidly I couldn't resist and I confess my error here and now. Yes, I listened to the Bill Kelly Show. The reason was Bill's guest, Bob Bratina.

As if Bill's random-word generated logic wasn't enough to cause a rise in my blood pressure, when Bob tried calming the waters stirred by RTH, local business people, and the Spectator, I almost threw my pen at the radio, such was my frustration.

I didn't throw the pen. I'm more civilized than that.

But rather than rant, I decided to quote. That way, you can decide for yourself what you think of Bob's leadership, logic, vision, intelligence, etc. I have added some bridging text and/or labels so that you will understand the focus of each quotation.

Lest you think I'm pulling his comments out of context, you can listen to the interview online through CHML. The quotations I include were transcribed by me, so I can attest to their accuracy.

NOTE: It was only after I wrote the paragraphs you just read when the news broke that City Manager Chris Murray has suspended work on LRT. To quote his email to staff and Council that was sent out on Friday, July 15, "I have made a decision to suspend all current direct and indirect activities of the Light Rail Transit Initiative other than any work activities required to be completed under the agreement."

So, that means Bob Bratina appeared on Kelly's show with the full knowledge of Murray's "independent" decision to suspend LRT work, and that LRT staff would be reduced from 6 or 7 to 1. Either that, or he doesn't read his emails from the City Manager. You be the judge.

So, if he did know about the decision, why did he say the things he did? Why did he not share this rather significant decision with Bill Kelly and his listeners? Why did he say that he could not understand what the Spectator was getting at when they printed their concerns about LRT going off the rails.

Bratina, as has always been his way, will say that he never said anything that was not accurate. He mentioned only Jill Stephen, and she is still involved in LRT. He said they were still working on LRT. He said there were still many unknowns.

All of these are convenient truths. Why not simply share the facts with us? All of them? Instead, we get carefully worded responses that cause us to think one thing, when an entirely different decision has been made. I guess Bob thinks this is all very clever on his part. I don't agree. Neither, I hope, do you.

Here's how Bill Kelly introduced the show.

We're going to beat the LRT shuttlecock around once again. Not too long ago we had Hamilton Mayor Bob Bratina and City Manager Chris Murray with us here in studio to talk about the status of LRT and where we were standing. I thought it was a pretty informative session. Obviously, it's not good enough for some people.

The local daily ran some stuff on the weekend that basically suggested that Hamilton politicians seem to be falling off the bandwagon when it comes to LRT. That's not the impression I got from the Mayor and City Manager and a lot of people on Council. What they have shown is the audacity to ask some questions about whether or not this is actually feasible and workable for Hamilton. God forbid we should get some answers before we spend a billion dollars.

No, this is not the point where I almost threw the pen, although when transcribing it I almost threw my laptop.

Bob expressed deep confusion over the reason the Spectator decided to run multiple stories and a pretty direct editorial and intense editorial cartoon in Saturday's paper.

I really don't know what the whole weekend Spectator brouhaha was all about because life is unfolding, the work continues to take LRT from concept stage to a full strategy with funding. We have no idea what the details of the funding will be. And there a lot of other issues. We're not even sure, for instance, on the route where exactly we would park the vehicles. So, there are a whole series of questions......There's nothing before Council upon which to make any decisions whatsoever, so I'm really not sure what all of that weekend Spectator articles were all about.

On the reason that all-day GO service is a priority (implying that LRT is not a priority just yet).

A million people a day go into Toronto. That's the critical mass of people that's going to change Hamilton and the people who are moving in and out of the city, not moving within the city going from Eastgate to downtown. And that's fine. We'll deal with LRT when it's time to deal with it...

Someone from Stoney Creek would be able to drive to that (GO train) parking lot, somewhere around Centennial, and get on a GO train and be in Toronto in an hour, or save 8 minutes going on a streetcar to the west end of the city. There's no comparison in the impact of those two entities. GO is ready to go. We're working hard to make it go, and I know the province has been dealing with us in an open and fair manner and we feel they will see things our way.

On showing leadership and championing LRT.

I'm not about being a champion. If I'm the champion of anything it's about keeping Hamilton affordable and sustainable. I talked about that a lot during the election because we wasted too much money and made bad decisions, so we're going to be very careful about how we spend our money. That's what I'm the champion of. This question of champion, I mean someone championed the west harbour and placed third in the election. So what's championing all about? Somebody wants to be a champion, go ahead. I'd rather be the guy in the corner wiping the cut stuff on the guy's face, keeping him going.

I sent an email to Bill Kelly as I listened to the show. Bill read the first half of my email on air:

Bill,

Bob's spin on GO being in front of us right now, versus the seeming longer range mystery (at least to Bob) of LRT, is a false dilemma. Bob Bratina was talking about all-day GO service 5 years ago. Was he premature in his support? Wasting his and our time with a dream? This is not about all-day GO versus LRT. The province is talking about both at the same time. Why can't our leaders? It's called multitasking.

Bob replied:

You have to remember that when I wanted a return passenger service to the James Street North station, the mayor was against it, of the day, the planning department were against it, of the day. They were looking at Copetown as a place to put a station. And, to be fair, the Minister of Transport was against it. So, I was fighting three levels of government and now it's on the verge of happening. So, I guess I did champion that.

Bob on the unknown costs of LRT.

Some people say they're (the province) going to pay 100% of the capital costs. What does that mean? Nobody knows what that means, so how can someone who purports to be caring about the poor arbitrarily impose tax increases on their humble houses of say 7, 8, 9, 10%? How do you do that? I have to care about those people too.....What do these people want Council to do today? There is no recommendation before us at the moment and there won't be for a while yet. at best it would be 9 or 10 years before anybody would be riding on an LRT.

Bob on having a clear vision for the city.

Someone accused us of having no vision, no direction. OK, here it is. All-day GO service, McMaster comes downtown, waterfront. Those three things are active files, moving ahead quickly.

Bob on why LRT might work in Kitchener-Waterloo.

We estimate that there are about 60,000 students in Kitchener-Waterloo and around those places like the RIM's and the Wilfred Laurier's are huge empty spaces which can be filled up with development. And you can drive up and down our proposed LRT route all you want and you don't see large parcels of land waiting to be developed. There are some in the downtown core I grant you, but you need 500 people very 10 minutes to get on at Walter Avenue or Parkdale or down there to come downtown.

Bob on saving heritage buildings and downtown cores.

Some cities who missed the (downtown demolition) wave are now reaping the benefit of not having done that. The cities who went hell bent for leather knocking down their old parts. In Europe, in the eastern block countries, cities like Prague. Prague is a jewel. It's one of the most loved cities in the world because nothing happened there in that horrible period of the sixties and seventies because there were no investments and they didn't tear all their old city down. So, in retrospect, sometimes it's a hard way to learn a lesson.

Bob on increasing commercial property tax revenues and LRT.

The real hole in terms of the downtown is the north side of King between Catherine, or say John, just take the two blocks between John and James where you have the peep show, the thrift store, bingo. All of the two blocks contribute a total of $340,000 in taxes to the city. That should be like $2 million. So, how do we go off on other investment tangents when we know if we have that problem there that has to be fixed?

Bob on where he thinks LRT should go (NOTE: It seems as if the studies, and the investments in those studies, are too focused on an LRT route that Bob, according to his own words, does not support. What better way to stop focusing on the B-Line than to pull resources and to announce a suspension of all direct and indirect activities related to LRT? That way, you can get your act together to perhaps focus on the A-Line route instead? Maybe, but who can tell from this kind of foggy communication from Bratina and Murray?)

Everyone who has come to my office in the last year, or six months, has had to go through the boredom of me unrolling my map of where the LRT should go. And the City Manager, "Oh not again, here he goes with his map. We have an LRT line sitting waiting to go that goes from the airport to the GO station, goes through the two business parks in Glanbrook, goes through the 20,000 home sprawl, which I didn't want to support that but we're going to get 20,000 new houses in the southeast you know up around Summit Park and that way.

So I have a map in my office that shows the corridor it comes down and it hits Rymal, Stonechurch, Limeridge, Mohawk and then you get this nice sweep. We own the property. There are no sewers. There's nothing underneath that. I would easily guess it would be a third of the cost of the B-Line. And it would then subsequently connect to the waterfront.

So, it comes from the airport, goes through all that growth that I said that will happen, not might happen, then it goes to the GO station. Now it could go along Hunter to Bay down to King and then branch off to McMaster or continue down Bay say to the waterfront. You got it all connected at a third of the price. Hello. (taps the microphone) Is anybody there? So, why wouldn't we do that?

Bob on the costs of building LRT on top of existing underground infrastructure.

Most jurisdictions who do this find that the costs escalate dramatically. A good example is Edinburgh. 80% of the 500 million pounds has been spent. 28% of the work is done.

The last word is mine, at least within the body of this article. Bob can respond if he sees fit. In closing, please permit me a few questions.

Why did Bratina not even mention Murray's email and its rationale and its implications when he had a full, uninterrupted hour to do so over the airwaves?

Why did he say he couldn't understand the Spectator's concern about LRT going off the rails when he knew that resources (staff and money) were being pulled?

Why did he not speak about the Public Information Centres happening (or are they?) Tuesday and Wednesday evening about the B-Line route?

Why are citizens being treated with such disrespect?

Why indeed. Perhaps the most challenging of the questions I'll pose for now is: how can the City of Hamilton possibly survive this leadership vacuum?

Graham Crawford was raised in Hamilton, moving to Toronto in 1980 where he spent 25 years as the owner of a successful management consulting firm that he sold in 2000. He retired and moved back to Hamilton in 2005 and became involved in heritage and neighbourhood issues. He opened Hamilton HIStory + HERitage on James North in 2007, a multi-media exhibition space (aka a storefront museum) celebrating the lives of the men and women who have helped to shape the City of Hamilton.

22 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted July 19, 2011 at 09:17:40

Good questions.

I don't believe Metrolinx is putting any money into studies of the proposed GO station in Hamilton. In fact I'm not sure what these six city employees are going to do.

Typical though, we waffle back and forth over half-complete projects...

Nice to hear his three priorities...is the Mayor or anyone else doing anything on any of them? McMaster comes downtown, well, the city is debating giving them money, but they seem to be short on time and information, and in a bad bargaining position vis a vis McMaster (hmm...why does that situation sound familiar?). What are they doing on the waterfront? The waterfront is a priority...but what for? Is he implementing Setting Sail? Cleaning up Randle Reef? Hard to see how the waterfront is a priority without cleaning up randle reef. Then again, maybe his priority is the heavy industry located on the waterfront that we've been hearing so many good things about. That's what Hamilton wants right? Heavy industry on the waterfront?

I also like how he half-answered your question Graham. The mark of a real leader - blame other people whenever the opportunity arises, and ignore the real question.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted July 19, 2011 at 10:07:17

More and more it is obvious that the grand vision our business and political leaders have of Hamilton is that of a Bedroom Community. Way to think big boys and girls, sponge off the success of others.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted July 19, 2011 at 10:52:33

The real hole in terms of the downtown is the north side of King between Catherine, or say John, just take the two blocks between John and James where you have the peep show, the thrift store, bingo. All of the two blocks contribute a total of $340,000 in taxes to the city. That should be like $2 million. So, how do we go off on other investment tangents when we know if we have that problem there that has to be fixed?

What a way to champion the interests of the poor, Bob. The "real hole" couldn't possibly be along the south side of King along that stretch, like the Howard Johnson, or recently demolished building near Hughson. It certainly isn't the solid blocks of surface parking and rubble lot a block or two north of the stretch he described. Nor is it the space of the old Tivoli, or the gaping hole that was the Federal Building. No, it's the thrift store and associated bingo hall which just aren't paying enough taxes. Nevermind that the street-wall of storefronts are largely open and that it's one of the best-travelled sidewalks in Hamilton - these are the kinds of businesses. They cater to poor people, so they're even worse than rubble lots.

This is exactly the kind of mentality which he complains about destroying most of the rest of downtown.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By WRCU2 (registered) - website | Posted July 19, 2011 at 13:04:13

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 Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted July 19, 2011 at 18:43:57 in reply to Comment 66508

Some people say they're (the province) going to pay 100% of the capital costs. What does that mean? Nobody knows what that means, so how can someone who purports to be caring about the poor arbitrarily impose tax increases on their humble houses of say 7, 8, 9, 10%?

Let's not forget the beginning of the paragraph, where the mayor admits he doesn't know what "capital costs" are. Aside from that - they, as council, have the ability to raise their chunk of the funds however they see fit. If anybody would be "arbitrarily" imposing tax increases on the poor it would be them.

Permalink | Context

By Sigma Cub (anonymous) | Posted July 19, 2011 at 14:37:05 in reply to Comment 66508

The city's answer is to spend more money. And while you're "elated to have improved water service and a much dryer basement," they'd have let the trunk-lines moulder were it not for flooding. They're much more interested in other infrastructure.

~ ~ ~

Hamilton’s biggest problems are roads and sidewalks. While $48.5 million is budgeted per year, closer to $140 million would be needed to sustain the existing roads over the next 100 years.

The city takes about $2.50 a day from residents for roads and traffic through property taxes. According to the city’s 2009 State of the Infrastructure Report, more than $4 a day would be needed to sustain roads and traffic over the next 100 years.

'The regular budget is not dealing with the issue any more,' Murray said, adding that the federal government’s gas tax and money from the provincial surplus have helped recently. But he fears what will happen when that well is dry.

So what is Hamilton doing? This year’s $48.5 million for roads, traffic and bridges represents an $8.5 million increase. This means, along with the main roads, work can be done on local roads and sidewalks...

About $32.7 million from provincial surplus funds and the city’s tax levy went to this program, which has completed 17 neighbourhoods or 5.7 per cent of the local and collector road network since 2009."

http://www.hamiltonmountainnews.com/news/article/238138

~ ~ ~

In other words, the cost to the city of the B-Line LRT investment is roughly what should be spent on Hamilton roads and sidewalk maintenance *every year* and what is actually spent on roads/sidewalk infrastructure every three years. And those investments simply buy us the status quo.

I agree that the city should live within its means, but the haphazard way they're going about it does not speak of judgement borne of reflection. I'd be more impressed to have a State of the City letting taxpayers know that they'd be getting a zero-increase tax bill, but also an accompanying austerity program that impacted every non-essential service in the municipality, for as long as it took to get our house back in order. But that's unlikely to happen because Hamilton is addicted to rescue money from upper government, and the province and feds are always open to some naked vote-buying.

Permalink | Context

By Sigma Cub (anonymous) | Posted July 19, 2011 at 14:40:52 in reply to Comment 66514

Sorry, dudes. Haste makes waste.

"$140 million would be needed to sustain the existing roads over the next 100 years." So the cost to the city of the B-Line LRT investment (estimated at $130 million) is roughly what should be spent on Hamilton roads and sidewalk maintenance for a century – and what is actually spent on Hamilton roads/sidewalk infrastructure every three years.

Permalink | Context

By Brandon (registered) | Posted July 19, 2011 at 15:51:07 in reply to Comment 66515

Sorry, dudes. Haste makes waste.

And a stitch in time saves nine.

By doing the LRT as soon as practicable, it will generate more investment in the city, which will mean more tax dollars flowing in.

Good lord, business groups are asking for this to be done, it's not just transit enthusiasts anymore.

Hopefully this is just the mayor's way of generating that outcry of support. If it wasn't, he can no longer honestly say that he hasn't heard anything.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted July 19, 2011 at 15:27:25 in reply to Comment 66515

You misunderstand - he's saying we're deferring the maintenance by funding only 1/3rd the roadwork, which means our roads won't last 100 years.

Permalink | Context

By Sigma Cub (anonymous) | Posted July 19, 2011 at 15:40:05 in reply to Comment 66516

I believe that's called "job creation."

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted July 19, 2011 at 16:34:15

"...when I wanted a return passenger service to the James Street North station, the mayor was against it, of the day, the planning department were against it, of the day... And, to be fair, the Minister of Transport was against it."

I don't know about the radical reform that has come to the city's planning department, but two of those hurdles seem overstated to say the least. The mayor is one vote (proven by the last mayor was regularly shanghai'd by council). Then-Minister of Transportation Jim Bradley GO Transit expansion to Niagara region a year after the James North station was put back into play in the spring of 2008; Bradley left that post in a 2010 shuffle but has continued to press for all-day GO Train service, which would naturally pass through Hamilton:

“There’s nothing I like hearing better than ‘permanent,’” said Bradley, because he said that creates the possibility of building on the weekend and holiday service with perhaps a daily commuter train service between Niagara and the GTA in the future.

http://bulletnewsniagara.ca/2011/04/16/report-on-daily-go-trains-to-niagara-due-next-month

Do these seem like paper tigers to anyone else?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Vod_Kann (registered) | Posted July 19, 2011 at 19:26:21

Two points here....

I would expect with a former broadcaster at the helm, the one area that would improve would be communication. Apparently not. The reason why there is such a big deal being made is the OPTICS look bad and sometimes that is everything. A large part of that comes from the same problems we had in the stadium- negotiating through the media and "leaked" e-mails. Can't anybody in this city compose a simple press release stating here is what we are doing, here's why we are doing it and this is how it affect the city?

Secondly (but I think related) - Is there another politician anywhere as thin-skinned as Mayor Bob? Barack Obama once said (paraphrasing) "Politics is a job where if 40% of the public hates you, you're doing well". Yet Bratina just takes EVERYTHING personally. Regardless of what has been done with any project, the public has the right to "that's not enough, we expect more". I wonder if he gets that?

As a Halton resident who did live in Burlington, this arrogance reminds me of Cam Jackson's tenure as mayor. Bratina has this "they'll vote me in regardless" feel that Cam had after year after year of election vitory (right down to getting in digs at the former mayor). he should be forewarned that Burlingtonians voted Cam out, not just because of the pier, but they tired of felling like they were in "Cam's Kingdom"

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted July 19, 2011 at 19:45:37

Man, if this is what the glorious 'ambitious' years of Hamilton were like in the 40's I'm glad I wasn't alive.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Larry Di Ianni (anonymous) | Posted July 20, 2011 at 06:46:57

Bratina said, "You have to remember that when I wanted a return passenger service to the James Street North station, the mayor was against it, of the day, the planning department were against it, of the day. They were looking at Copetown as a place to put a station. And, to be fair, the Minister of Transport was against it. So, I was fighting three levels of government and now it's on the verge of happening. So, I guess I did champion that."

With all due respect, some selective memory is on display here, as well as some spinning. I was the mayor of the day and Copetown was not my preferred choice. Neither was it the Federal minister of the day's choice. For me, downtown or the east end were fine. My priority was getting Via service back into the city. For its part, Via looked at all options (including Copetown), but the one they were pushed to be interested in was the Centennial area of the city. I had key Council support for putting it there with a strategy of then reconnecting to James Street once the committment had been made by Via. The then Councillor of the day saw this as a lack of confidence in downtown and ragged the puck. He wanted to conduct a public process on the best location for a new station. I conceded and participated, thinking we had time to move Via into the city.

The problem is that the Liberal government fell and the Via dream was derailed. Too bad. Via would have been back into the city seven years ago had I pushed the councillor's concerns aside in favour of the city's interests.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 20, 2011 at 08:24:04 in reply to Comment 66554

By the way, I confirmed that this comment really is from Larry Di Ianni.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted July 20, 2011 at 08:51:41 in reply to Comment 66556

based on his twitter comments and other remarks, you can't help but wonder if he smells a stunning comeback opportunity here. If the election was tomorrow, I'd vote for him (for the first time) in a heartbeat.

Permalink | Context

By Steve (registered) | Posted July 20, 2011 at 10:55:17 in reply to Comment 66558

After seeing his performance at one of the all candidates meetings/debates, I wouldn't.

He completely mis-read the audience and IMHO garnered no support. Heck, he probably lost some.

Permalink | Context

By drb (registered) - website | Posted July 20, 2011 at 09:42:32 in reply to Comment 66558

Very Funny!! I was thinking the same thing. It is amazing that, given the vacuum that is sucking good ideas into a void in the current mayor's office, we begin to see what leadership looks (looked) like. And it's coming from the benches.

I was concerned with Bratina's thin platform when he ran. Now I am aghast by his defined "vision". GO, Mac downtown, and the waterfront (whatever he means by that!)? He mentions nothing about densification, fixing outmoded zoning regulations, attracting new investment/jobs.

If that is his vision he needs to get his glasses prescription checked.

Permalink | Context

By Vod_Kann (registered) | Posted July 20, 2011 at 17:50:36 in reply to Comment 66561

"Now I am aghast by his defined "vision". GO, Mac downtown, and the waterfront (whatever he means by that!)?"

Where is de-amalgamation? wasn't he going to march to Queen Park and make that happen?

There has to be a rural voter somewhere who can ask how that is coming?

Permalink | Context

By drb (registered) - website | Posted July 20, 2011 at 18:18:43 in reply to Comment 66656

Didn't you know? De-amalgamation was Bratina's MacGuffin.

Permalink | Context

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted July 20, 2011 at 10:01:59 in reply to Comment 66561

the waterfront (whatever he means by that!)

Pretty sure he means Witton Lofts on Murray St, Hey! We can already check that one off, only two to go and then we can coast until '14.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By WRCU2 (registered) - website | Posted July 20, 2011 at 07:42:04

That's just great, as if there weren't enough confusion already. Now we've got a former mayor and VIA thrown into the mix. I don't know how anyone can make sense of this!

Mayor Bratina, you had better come forward and start saying something in your defense and do so outside of your broadcasting comfort zone. I don't listen to AM radio, I read theSpec and RTH and I want to see something from you very soon in one of these venues.

I will also suggest that you make an appearance at Gage Park Saturday afternoon and address your constituents in a befitting manner as Hamilton's Mayor. After that, perhaps you could sing us a song or two since you seem to perform better as a piano player.

Comment edited by WRCU2 on 2011-07-20 07:46:26

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