City's Bylaw enforcement

[hmagazine]

As no one here posted these articles - I assume the enforcement of our priority bylaws aren't a priority to Skyscraper posters...

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/546778

The Hamilton Spectator
(Apr 11, 2009)

Illegal flower vendors beware -- the city is on the prowl.

Hamilton bylaw officers will be conducting an inspection blitz this long weekend looking for street vendors operating without a licence.

Flower stands and other roadside sellers frequently pop up along city streets for Easter, said Marty Hazell, senior director of parking and bylaw services.

He said legitimate businesses have complained about illegal operators taking away customers, and the city is also concerned the displays can be distracting for drivers.

The city has issued about 25 to 30 peddler permits. If a vendor is found without a proper licence, he or she could face a $500 fine, Hazell said.

The city recently revamped its licensing department to start proactive enforcement of high-priority bylaws. For more information visit hamilton.ca/mle.

[hmagazine]

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/548045

Three vendors have been charged by the City of Hamilton with selling flowers without a permit during the Easter weekend.

The charges came after Hamilton bylaw officers conducted an inspection blitz because of complaints from flower shops and those who have bought one of the 67 permits the city issued to vendors.

Stephen Bailey, co-ordinator of municipal law enforcement, said yesterday officers checked 75 locations between Flamborough and Stoney Creek. Apart from laying the three charges, officers are investigating five other vendors for violating the city's bylaw.

Bailey believed the small number of charges means the message is getting out to illegal vendors after the city began clamping down about five years ago. Bylaw officers expect to conduct another blitz on Mother's Day in May.

A vendor convicted of violating the city's bylaw faces a maximum fine of $500.

[hmagazine]

Are flower sellers a bylaw priority?

April 15, 2009
Matt Jelly
The Hamilton Spectator
Hamilton
(Apr 15, 2009)

Re: 'City rooting out unlicensed flower stands' (April 11)

While I appreciate any effort to revamp and

improve Hamilton's approach to bylaw enforcement, I have to question whether cracking down on unlicensed flower stands or roadside fruit signs should be a priority.

When Hamilton's bylaw department began a revamp last year, emphasis was on prioritization of enforcement; some bylaws were deemed a lesser priority, whether because they proved to be harder (or impossible) to adequately enforce or were considered less crucial to residents' health and well-being. Seeing that bylaw enforcement personnel can't be everywhere at once, the notion of defining some basic priorities seems like a logical approach.

Considering this, I find it frustrating after several decades of spotty and selective bylaw enforcement that some people are facing fines for relatively trivial infractions, compared to, let's say, keeping a building vacant and derelict, or starting construction without a building permit.

We need to ensure bylaws are primarily focused on ensuring the health and safety of residents and the overall functionality of our city, instead of cracking down on a few people trying to make a living at a time when doing so is increasingly difficult.

Undoubtedly, there are instances of unenforced bylaw infractions that take place every day which should be of far more concern than a few illegal flowers or roadside signs advertising locally-grown produce.

[FairHamilton]

Please don't get me started on the bylaw department....................

I'm 100% behind the enforcement of this, and other bylaws. Though getting them enforced is usually an exercise in frustration, and sometimes an exercise in futility.

And I'm probably one of the most persistent (and I suspect much hated within the MLE department) resident they have come across.

As I stated, please don't get me started.......

[coalminecanary]

I am 100% for enforcement of all of the bylaws, otherwise why have them?

We all have our gripes that we'd like solved through bylaw enforcement - from something like a neighbour's unsightly front yard, to illegal flower vendors, to unauthorized demolitions and parking lots.

But how many hours were spent (at time and a half?) chasing after these 3 vendors? And in the big picture of Hamilton's bylaw infraction issues, are these vendors really a big problem?

What about all of the buildings being demo'd by neglect? What about the illegal parking lots?

There needs to be some priority set and adhered to. If we are lacking manpower for enforcement, perhaps we shouldn't send the resources we have on hand out to chase the largely inconsequential infractions...

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by hmagazine

As no one here posted these articles - I assume the enforcement of our priority bylaws aren't a priority to Skyscraper posters...

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/546778

The Hamilton Spectator
(Apr 11, 2009)

Illegal flower vendors beware -- the city is on the prowl.

Hamilton bylaw officers will be conducting an inspection blitz this long weekend looking for street vendors operating without a licence.

Flower stands and other roadside sellers frequently pop up along city streets for Easter, said Marty Hazell, senior director of parking and bylaw services.

He said legitimate businesses have complained about illegal operators taking away customers, and the city is also concerned the displays can be distracting for drivers.

The city has issued about 25 to 30 peddler permits. If a vendor is found without a proper licence, he or she could face a $500 fine, Hazell said.

The city recently revamped its licensing department to start proactive enforcement of high-priority bylaws. For more information visit hamilton.ca/mle.

This is the key driver to this particular enforcement - it is complaint driven. Given that licensed businesses (who contribute to the city's tax base) have complained about these unlicensed vendors (who do not contribute to the city's tax base), the licensing department was right to enforce the bylaw over the weekend.

And, it the grand scheme of things, one bylaw officer enforcing this bylaw over the span of the weekend is a drop in the bucket. A mountian is being made of a mowhill.

[hmagazine]

Mark,

The mountain in this case is that there are bylaw infractions clearly being ignored by enforcement.

If you think illegal warehouses, derelict buildings and illegal parkings are molehills - you are clearly underestimating the impact it has on the overall health of our city.

[markbarbera]

That's a serious allegation to say that bylaw enforcement is ignoring complaints of bylaw enforcement. Is there an example of illegal warehouses, derelect buildings or illegal parkings that have been reported to bylaw enforcement but was subsequently ignored by the enforcement office?

[adam]

Why not catch speeders along Main and King? I believe the speed limit is 50km/h all acrosss Hamilton unless otherwise posted. There are no speed postings in Main or King. This would be a great source of income for the city given the number of speeders along the major arteries leading into the heart of the downtown.

[markbarbera]

...

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Is there an example of illegal warehouses, derelect buildings or illegal parkings that have been reported to bylaw enforcement but was subsequently ignored by the enforcement office?

Here's an example. See also this follow-up in the comments.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

Here's an example. See also this follow-up in the comments.

Back in June 2008, bylaw enforcement staff put forward a recommendation that charges be laid in connection to this. So your example definitely does not illustrate bylaw enforcement staff ignoring the bylaw or the enforcement of said bylaw. I am not sure how the city handled the recommendation once it was made. According to the initial news article on this item, Councillor Brattina did not consider this a top priority for bylaw issues because of an impending development on the site. Perhaps he can give an update on either the status of the complaint or on the actual development itself.

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

That's a serious allegation to say that bylaw enforcement is ignoring complaints of bylaw enforcement. Is there an example of illegal warehouses, derelect buildings or illegal parkings that have been reported to bylaw enforcement but was subsequently ignored by the enforcement office?

Take a stroll down James North. Interspersed with all of the people actually trying to bring this retail stretch back to life, there are storefronts being used as storage (illegal), storefronts being used as living spaces (illegal) and storefronts being used as warehouses (illegal), not to mention the buildings which are being demo'd by neglect by out of town squatters.

How do you think these owners' actions are affecting the people trying to legally make a living in the neighbouring stores?

[omro]

There was an abandoned building thread, we could resurrect it or start a new thread and keep a list of the verified derelict buildings and illegal parking lots in it and then present the list to council/a councillor?

[SteelTown]

^ You will see an older rendering that the old HMP building was incorporated with the Hilton Hotel. Eventually the building became a safety issue and was demolished with the City's approval.

[SteelTown]

I think the HMP building was going to have a restaurant on the main floor and the rest office for Darko's hotel empire.

[Bob Bratina]

Vrancor did not originally intend to keep the HMP building. My personal history with it goes back about 40 years, having had cars serviced there, etc. It was a wood-framed brick box somewhat saturated with the ooze and effluence of automotive lubricants and other solvents. Had it caught fire it would have been major conflagration.

Vrancor's architects were present at the LACAC meeting which heralded the saving of the Lister Block, and rather than argue that day for demolition, they agreed to look at incorporating it into the hotel design. You can search the records and find the date of that appearance, and then find the date of demolition approval. You'll see that many months passed as they studied how the HMP building might be retained. The first proposal was rejected because they showed the building attached to the hotel, which was not approved by Hilton. The drawings shown in this thread were the second attempt, showing the building separated from the main hotel structure. While this process was taking place Vrancor built TWO hotels in Sudbury and began constructing another in North Bay, as well as purchasing the Sheraton Hamilton. I do not excuse the parking lot operation, and charges were laid by the City. My understanding is that Vrancor is taking this to the O.M.B.

Site plan work continues with the City planning department, although changes in design and schedule may occur due to the inability of the Board of Education to come to terms with McMaster regarding the proposed Family Medicine faculty and clinic proposed for the Education Centre site. McMaster intends to start the project and wants it located in the core. This could mean utilizing other near-by properties. We have held talks with two property owners in the past week or so, and other potential sites are city-owned. In any case it's fairly certain that significant development will take place in the core, perhaps even a Pan Am stadium.

[drpgq]

What is it with the board of education that they can't get this done? Is it basically that senior management want to get away from downtown or what?

Originally Posted by Bob Bratina

Vrancor did not originally intend to keep the HMP building. My personal history with it goes back about 40 years, having had cars serviced there, etc. It was a wood-framed brick box somewhat saturated with the ooze and effluence of automotive lubricants and other solvents. Had it caught fire it would have been major conflagration.

Vrancor's architects were present at the LACAC meeting which heralded the saving of the Lister Block, and rather than argue that day for demolition, they agreed to look at incorporating it into the hotel design. You can search the records and find the date of that appearance, and then find the date of demolition approval. You'll see that many months passed as they studied how the HMP building might be retained. The first proposal was rejected because they showed the building attached to the hotel, which was not approved by Hilton. The drawings shown in this thread were the second attempt, showing the building separated from the main hotel structure. While this process was taking place Vrancor built TWO hotels in Sudbury and began constructing another in North Bay, as well as purchasing the Sheraton Hamilton. I do not excuse the parking lot operation, and charges were laid by the City. My understanding is that Vrancor is taking this to the O.M.B.

Site plan work continues with the City planning department, although changes in design and schedule may occur due to the inability of the Board of Education to come to terms with McMaster regarding the proposed Family Medicine faculty and clinic proposed for the Education Centre site. McMaster intends to start the project and wants it located in the core. This could mean utilizing other near-by properties. We have held talks with two property owners in the past week or so, and other potential sites are city-owned. In any case it's fairly certain that significant development will take place in the core, perhaps even a Pan Am stadium.

[SteelTown]

Should create a little committee where people meet once a month or so and walk around a certain area and list all possible bylaw infractions. After all the required information is collected report to the bylaw office. This way at least the bylaw office is informed and action should be taken.

[SteelTown]

Proactive Approach of Vacant/Derelict Buildings
http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyre...0PED09031a.pdf