Quote:
Originally Posted by FairHamilton
My point was to make decisions based on analysis of the facts on hand, not the commission of another study
|
This just isn't parsing for me. A study
is an analysis of the facts at hand. It reminds me of the
old saw, "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. it's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
Without studying the issue, all we have to go on is what a gaggle of Councillors happen to think about it, which as we have seen is often riddled with bias, hasty assumptions and misinformation.
Granted, a study is only as good as a) the parameters and scope of the request and b) the actual work that went into preparing it, but there's simply no way around that.
For example, the recent staff recommendation to raise transit fares by 10 cents was based on the assumption that raising transit tax assessments or (gasp!) eliminating area rating is simply not an option. The alternative was: raise fares or reduce service. Given that false alternative, staff recommended raising fares. That study drew a logical conclusion from an unreasonable premise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairHamilton
Actually, maybe that's an idea. To write a shadow study and see how closely it mirrors the actual one. That way we could evaluate if the city got any value for it's $150K.
|
That's a very interesting idea for citizens to pursue. It could either a) give some new consultants a chance to compete or b) give the city some leverage to negotiate better rates with existing consultants.
Essentially, we did this with Hamilton Light Rail, studying the issue and publishing reports which the city eventually duplicated - and came to pretty much the same conclusions. (Metrolinx, in turn, will have to conduct its own independent assessment on whether the city's studies were conducted fairly, objectively and accurately.)
There are differences, of course, between our studies and the city's:
1. We did it for free on our own time, while the city will have spent $500,000 by year's end (though that includes public outreach, etc.).
2. Our studies were conducted by amateurs and have no official standing, while the city studies were conducted by trained staff and are considered valid by senior staff and Council for decision-making purposes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairHamilton
If Lloyd and Dave can only make decisions based on studies and are unable or incapable to do proper research themselves, can we be sure they even read the results of the studies?
|
That's also an endemic problem, but eliminating studies is definitely not the way to address the problem of Councillors not reading studies. That would just enable them to continue making decisions from ideology and parochialism rather than from evidence.
Also, the job of a Councillor is to not, arguably, to do independent research; and having seen the way many of them do research (remember Councillor Whitehead citing 60 year old studies to defend his opposition to two-way street conversion?), the thought of them making decisions based on their own research fills me with horror.
If anything, I'd love to see Council pass some kind of resolution that commits them to acting on studies that they request.
Here's a poignant example: in 2004, Council hired Peter Ormond to prepare a study on
Hamilton's vulnerability to climate change (PDF). The study identified risk areas and made several recommendations on how the city can a) reduce Hamilton's GHG production and b) protect its infrastructure. Since then, Council has utterly ignored the study and its recommendations in every decision it has made that falls under the scope of the study.
The same is true of Richard Gilbert's famous study
Hamilton: The Electric City (PDF). Not only has Council totally ignored the study's recommendations, but staff have delayed preparing a follow-up report requested by Council for some two and a half years.
In fact, the framework Hamilton should use for its planning decisions is
remarkably consistent across a wide variety of studies, yet Council continues to fall back on status-quo thinking when it comes time to make decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairHamilton
If we have councillors who can't make decisions without consistently needing the backing of studies costing hundreds of thousands of dollars then perhaps we need different councillors.
|
I disagree emphatically. The problem is that councillors make decisions without the backing of - or often in direct opposition to - those studies. Generally, the only studies Council listens to are studies that tell Council to do what they were planning to do already. There are notable exceptions, of course, to the list of which we must include, for example, Council's decision this summer to approve the Downtown Transportation Plan that they had previously rejected.
Again, the solution is not to eliminate the studies, but somehow to force Council to pay attention to the city's own analysis. That only happens when
groups of citizens get organized and advocate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairHamilton
Run the city more like a business and make decisions based on the facts at hand.
|
Businesses run studies. Successful businesses:
1. Study the right things;
2. Make business decisions based on the results of their studies;
3. Follow through on those business decisions; and
4. Change their business plans when the facts change.
Prev
Linear Mode
