City of Hamilton General Discussion Thread

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by Fruitloops

Vote on 6.7% budget increase upcoming.

do I want more bike lanes now, do we need a climate officer now, do council need increases to their office budgets now OR should we fix the roads, tend to the homeless etc.

Bang on. I'd prefer our city council actually fix the things that need fixing, rather than waste our tax money on woke nonsense. Maybe i'm old fashioned

[Innsertnamehere]

Of the 6.7%, 0.5% is to directly increase road repair spending. The intent is that it will kick into 1% annual increases going to roads spending starting next year, too. Before this council the plan was only for 0.5% increases all the way out, so the council has changed their signalling on road reconstructions.

Each 0.5% is equal to about $5 million of extra annual spending, or about 1-2 additional road reconstruction projects each year, depending on their size.

Main St is planned to be resurfaced from the 403 to Gage Park in 2024 and 2025, which will cost about $10 million, for example.

Hamilton's capital budget has $65 million spent on roads in 2023 - this is budgeted to go to $159 million by 2032.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Of the 6.7%, 0.5% is to directly increase road repair spending. The intent is that it will kick into 1% annual increases going to roads spending starting next year, too. Before this council the plan was only for 0.5% increases all the way out, so the council has changed their signalling on road reconstructions.

Each 0.5% is equal to about $5 million of extra annual spending, or about 1-2 additional road reconstruction projects each year, depending on their size.

Main St is planned to be resurfaced from the 403 to Gage Park in 2024 and 2025, which will cost about $10 million, for example.

So in 5 years, Hamilton will be spending about $45 million more in reconstruction every year, almost double what they spend now.

That's great news, thanks for the info.

Now let's pull all funding for the YWCA (a private organization that should not be receiving tax payer money) and use that money for fixing even more roads.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

That's great news, thanks for the info.

Now let's pull all funding for the YWCA (a private organization that should not be receiving tax payer money) and use that money for fixing even more roads.

The YWCA is getting that funding because they are providing a service that the city should be providing. The city is essentially contracting out that service to them.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

The YWCA is getting that funding because they are providing a service that the city should be providing. The city is essentially contracting out that service to them.

I personally don't believe providing services like that should fall on the city. What about the province, or perhaps more importantly the federal government?

I think the more concerning aspect of giving millions of dollars to a private organization like that without a proper tender process is the complete lack of oversight. Where is that money going exactly? Is it a transparent process, is there regular reports given proving where the funding is going? Is there a budget provided to the city? The answer to all these questions is a remarkable 'no'. That should be a serious cause for concern for all tax paying residents of this city. Mayor Horwath actually commented on what I just said, raising all of these points at the last council meeting. She got absolutely roasted on twitter by activists. These are all questions a diligent city council should be asking.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

I personally don't believe providing services like that should fall on the city. What about the province, or perhaps more importantly the federal government?

I think the more concerning aspect of giving millions of dollars to a private organization like that without a proper tender process is the complete lack of oversight. Where is that money going exactly? Is it a transparent process, is there regular reports given proving where the funding is going? Is there a budget provided to the city? The answer to all these questions is a remarkable 'no'. That should be a serious cause for concern for all tax paying residents of this city. Mayor Horwath actually commented on what I just said, raising all of these points at the last council meeting. She got absolutely roasted on twitter by activists. These are all questions a diligent city council should be asking.

The province provides funding to the city for it.

[Fruitloops]

Im all for bike lanes, ( avid cyclist) but can never figure out why in the Hammer its a one or the other decision vis a vis car v bike.

They can and should co exist without squeezing out car lanes ( York, Cannon etc).

Just drove downtown via Barton from FruitlaNd Rd.
Along the entire length there is a grassy, or paved over or cemented area nudged up to the sidewalk.

Granted the widths vary but you could put a bike lane in and keep the same traffic flow by using the extra area, and the middle area in spots and where is really tight pinch the vehicle lanes. Most of Hamiltons lane widths are very generous. We can have both, need both.

[Crapht]

Originally Posted by Fruitloops

Im all for bike lanes, ( avid cyclist) but can never figure out why in the Hammer its a one or the other decision vis a vis car v bike.

They can and should co exist without squeezing out car lanes ( York, Cannon etc).

Just drove downtown via Barton from FruitlaNd Rd.
Along the entire length there is a grassy, or paved over or cemented area nudged up to the sidewalk.

Granted the widths vary but you could put a bike lane in and keep the same traffic flow by using the extra area, and the middle area in spots and where is really tight pinch the vehicle lanes. Most of Hamiltons lane widths are very generous. We can have both, need both.

You might think that cars and bikes can and should co•exist in harmony but it’s car and truck drivers that refuse to share the road that results in cycling infrastructure. I wish saying “can’t we all just get along” worked but it doesn’t. Drivers do not have the unfettered right to dominate the public realm.
Cycling infrastructure needs to be a connected network providing convenience. Not just random spots where there’s room. Cannon/Hunter/Bay/Victoria all use what was once car lanes and they contribute greatly towards a better experience rather than take away.

[TheRitsman]

Also on bus and truck routes the lanes must be kept at 3.3m wide. Some streets have 3m lanes where there are no buses or trucks, and Main was 3m before and 3.3m now. In some retrofitted areas, 2.7m is acceptable, but modern SUVs and pick-up trucks are massive using the entire lane, so when a 2.7m or 3m lane exists they are often over the lines if they don't drive extremely carefully. I'd love to see speeds slowed and lanes narrowed to 2.7m, but in North America we have a way to go before lane widths are narrowed to European standards.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

His life must be JUST THAT INTERESTING.

But.. people can watch him have intercourse.. or walk around naked

thats pretty much all that argument ever really is haha.. people might see me..

also the argument of we need population growth is always a controversial one - STOP LETTING PEOPLE IN. We should be focusing on maintaining what we have not constantly growing. Can't imagine what the strain on utilities underground is gonna be like..

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

His life must be JUST THAT INTERESTING.

Yes. If, in 2023, one doesn't have the breakthrough domestic privacy technology commercially known as "blinds", it's probably time.

I also don't think they understand how angles work. Say you're in a two-storey house, sitting in your living room, living life. And across the street there's a four storey building. How much of the life playing out in that top-floor apartment can you see from your couch? Unless you're standing at your window, you're not going to see anything at all. And if you were standing at your window, leering at your neighbours, you could, maybe, see the first part of their ceiling. Likewise, a neighbour in an apartment building look down on your house might, might, see the floor immediately in front of their neighbour's window. Now instead of 4 storeys, call it 14. You're not seeing any detail at all from that difference.

[jammer139]

You might want to read Empty Planet to understand population demographics and the impacts that will have on societies around the world including Canada.


https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/b...john-ibbitson/


Interview with co-author Darrell Bricker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7JDXEL-Bbs

Originally Posted by Chronamut

But.. people can watch him have intercourse.. or walk around naked

thats pretty much all that argument ever really is haha.. people might see me..

also the argument of we need population growth is always a controversial one - STOP LETTING PEOPLE IN. We should be focusing on maintaining what we have not constantly growing. Can't imagine what the strain on utilities underground is gonna be like..

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

also the argument of we need population growth is always a controversial one - STOP LETTING PEOPLE IN. We should be focusing on maintaining what we have not constantly growing. Can't imagine what the strain on utilities underground is gonna be like..

We have an aging population. If we want to maintain our current living standards we need to let people in to prop of the ratio of workers to retirees.

Plus, even if we had zero population growth, we would want to see intensification because current suburbia is inefficient for transit purposes, and we need to switch over to more active transit and mass transit due to climate change.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by Beedok

We have an aging population. If we want to maintain our current living standards we need to let people in to prop of the ratio of workers to retirees.

Plus, even if we had zero population growth, we would want to see intensification because current suburbia is inefficient for transit purposes, and we need to switch over to more active transit and mass transit due to climate change.

Meanwhile china belches coal like crazy and noone says anything because theyre a "developing" nation..

[Fruitloops]

While the chicken littles blame everything on climate change, the bots on behalf of CCP, AI and the legion of loyal CCP social media inflencers promote mass hysteria such that Hamilton needs a climate officer, the US DoD spending billions on climate initiatives???

Nut, you are on to something..China 3000 plus coal fired generating plants and rising. Canada..9.

And we pay a carbon tax. We should be billing China, India et al for clean air.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Fruitloops

While the chicken littles blame everything on climate change, the bots on behalf of CCP, AI and the legion of loyal CCP social media inflencers promote mass hysteria such that Hamilton needs a climate officer, the US DoD spending billions on climate initiatives???

Nut, you are on to something..China 3000 plus coal fired generating plants and rising. Canada..9.

And we pay a carbon tax. We should be billing China, India et al for clean air.

lol wut - buddy get off the conspiracy theory train and get back into reality

[atnor]

You can all thank the carbon tax for your higher than normal gas bill. Surely if we tax people for living and redistribute it half assedly that will fix the environment.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by atnor

You can all thank the carbon tax for your higher than normal gas bill. Surely if we tax people for living and redistribute it half assedly that will fix the environment.

not to get too off track but the Carbon tax is actually the most conservative, market oriented solution to climate change.

if we agree carbon emissions are bad, and that they should be reduced, and that the most efficient form to complete a task is to let open market capitalism lead the charge - introducing a price on carbon is the most efficient way of doing that. As carbon becomes more expensive the market will naturally adjust to reduce consumption.

Conservative opposition to it has always puzzled me, since if we acknowledge that climate change is real, it's the most capitalistic, free market, government uninvolved way of addressing it. Put a price on it and let people figure out what forms of carbon consumption they really value.

[atnor]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

not to get too off track but the Carbon tax is actually the most conservative, market oriented solution to climate change.

if we agree carbon emissions are bad, and that they should be reduced, and that the most efficient form to complete a task is to let open market capitalism lead the charge - introducing a price on carbon is the most efficient way of doing that. As carbon becomes more expensive the market will naturally adjust to reduce consumption.

Conservative opposition to it has always puzzled me, since if we acknowledge that climate change is real, it's the most capitalistic, free market, government uninvolved way of addressing it. Put a price on it and let people figure out what forms of carbon consumption they really value.

Sure, if there was realistic affordable alternatives for home heating than natural gas or alternatives for getting goods to market then the carbon tax may be beneficial for getting people to reduce their consumption. However, due to the lack of availability and affordability of alternative means to carbon consumption, the end user gets screwed as they don’t have the means to adopt ecofriendly alternatives. The rebate does not offset the increase in everyday costs.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by atnor

Sure, if there was realistic affordable alternatives for home heating than natural gas or alternatives for getting goods to market then the carbon tax may be beneficial for getting people to reduce their consumption. However, due to the lack of availability and affordability of alternative means to carbon consumption, the end user gets screwed as they don’t have the means to adopt ecofriendly alternatives. The rebate does not offset the increase in everyday costs.

A) Heat pumps are a realistic affordable alternative. I'm actually looking into getting one to replace our gas heating as a result of gas prices.

B) Carbon tax is so hilariously low, that you probably wouldn't even notice it's removal.

C) As mentioned above, carbon tax is a market based climate plan, that was only criticized by conservatives in Canada once the Liberal party took the policy from the Conservative party that had been pushing it as a solution. Get off the team train and actually review the real world politics, history, and effectiveness of various strategies.