The proposed anti-idling by-law needs your support at the May 10 public consultation.
By Ryan McGreal
Apr. 30, 2007
It's far past time for Hamilton to enact the proposed idling control by-law that has been kicking around for over a year and a half.
Idling vehicles (RTH file photo)
First proposed in 2005, the by-law was defeated in early 2006 by the previous council in favour of a less-costly public education program that inexplicably failed to reduce idling.
Incoming Mayor Fred Eisenberger promised to revive the by-law, but his efforts have been mired in procedural delays by a tiny group of councillors who oppose it dogmatically.
Councillors Lloyd Ferguson (Ancaster), Dave Mitchell (Glanbrook) and Maria Pearson (Stoney Creek) have actively opposed the by-law since its introduction, attempting at each step to stall and delay it by whatever means they can.
First, in January Mitchell and Ferguson insisted that the agricultural and rural affairs committee, on which they both sit, also review the by-law.
After five weeks and an amendment to except farm vehicles, Mitchell and Pearson then insisted on additional public input before voting. Before that could take place, city staff had to decide how to gather such input.
Once that was settled, Councillor Brian McHattie, a strong supporter of the by-law, moved to hold a special committee of the whole meeting "to receive input from stakesholders and the public on the draft anti-idling by-law".
Incredibly, Ferguson, Mitchell and Pearson voted to oppose the meeting they themselves had insisted on holding before the by-law came to a vote.
This led Mayor Eisenberger to complain that some councillors are "thwarting the process" of trying to vote on the by-law.
The public committee of the whole meeting will take place in Council Chambers on Thursday, May 10 at 6:00 PM. If at all possible, please register to make a public delegation in defence of this by-law.
If you cannot attend in person, you can still submit your comments in writing, but it is more effective to present in person.
Alternately, you could argue, along with Councillor Pearson, that the anti-idling education campaign failed because it did not include signs at entrances to the city (presumably the only people still idling are those who commute from elsewhere).
As CATCH reported:
"I think there's a lot more that can be done as an education process," [Pearson] argued. "Also I think we should publicize that we are an idle-free community to everybody coming into Hamilton."
Of course, if Pearson and her obstructionist cohorts get their way, Hamilton won't be an idle-free community.
By here
Posted 5/4/2007 12:34:46 AM
Until this issue came up in council, I assumed that Hamilton like any other sensible place had an anti-idling by-law. I guess my assumption of sensible and Hamilton in the same sentence was misplaced. Pearson's demand for an educational campaign is absurd -- if you idle the police/by-law enforcement can educate you and if you are beyond help fine you.
By nobrainer
Posted 5/4/2007 11:28:22 AM
''I guess my assumption of sensible and Hamilton in the same sentence was misplaced.'' Amen to that!
By oreoturtle
Posted 5/6/2007 3:32:56 PM
If Pearson has such an issue with there being no signs as drivers come in to Hamilton, then why doesn't the City erect those signs?
By trey
Posted 5/7/2007 9:48:39 AM
Why wouldn't the city erect those signs?
Ask Pearon what exactly those signs would say? We don't have a bylaw, we don't have any awareness, we don't have any education or enforcement. So the signs would have to say "Hamilton doesn't care, go ahead, idle you face off".
By Anonymous
Posted 5/11/2007 12:04:19 AM
Looks like we're headed in the right direction after tonight's Committee meeting. It is quite frightening that we have had two smog advisory warnings all ready this spring. Something must be done and the City can lead by example!
NewsfeedsISSN: 1715-1554
'Benign Neutrality' is What's Wrong (Jul. 22, 2008) -
Ahhh, things have become a whole lot clearer today after reading a letter to the editor in today's Spectator by John Dolbec of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce.
The most telling comment i
The City as Dynamic System (Jul. 18, 2008) - I wrote yesterday about the complex and often counterintuitive properties of networks, and the role that simplistic "common sense" thinking can play in leading people to false conclusions about ho
Heat Alert 'Trigger' Too High (Jul. 17, 2008) - Toronto has issued an extreme heat alert - that city's highest warning level to inform and protect vulnerable residents from the dangers of extreme heat. The high humidex is supposed to last u
Passport to Hamilton (Jul. 17, 2008) -
A great new initiative developed by Environment Hamilton and the HSR will be unveiled at a public launch this Friday, July 18th at 10:00 am at Williams Coffee Pub on the waterfront.
Passport
Beyond 'Common Sense': How Traffic Networks Work (Jul. 16, 2008) - With all the talk recently about the Downtown Transportation Master Plan and some councillors' objections to spending money to convert downtown streets to two-way, it seems instructive to stud
Free HSR Fares Not The Way To Go (Jul. 16, 2008) -
Councillor Sam Merulla's recent suggestion that public transit in Hamilton ought to be free would risk making transit an economically and politically unsustainable venture for the city.
T
PRINT EDITION
By trey
Posted 5/1/2007 10:04:43 AM
Nice review of the events.
Regarding the signs at the entrance of the city. I'm assuming Pearson wasn't aware that Burlington, Oakville, Mississauga and Toronto all have anti-idling bylaws. There would be no reason for those drivers to assume Hamilton wasn't 'idle-free'. The truth is the signs should be saying, "It's okay to idle in Hamilton but not in the city you're coming from".
(Permalink)