No-fly zone

What do you folks think about the aerotropolis delay?

There are two camps of thought on the issue. The business community and the mayor say it's best to make a decision in the fall rather than waiting until January 2011. Others, like Environment Hamilton, say this is a complex issue that needs more time for public consultation.

My story today looks at how aerotropolis is one of several controversial issues that council has been delayed this term. (My colleague Meredith MacLeod compiled a list of several examples here.) Here's an excerpt from the article:

The economic development and planning committee voted Tuesday to shelve any decisions on the planned industrial park near the airport until 2011 to allow more time for public consultation.

The move has angered members of the business community, who accuse council of stalling a development pegged to bring the city thousands of jobs.

Along with area rating and ward boundaries, it's the third significant issue that has been put off until after the election.

Councillors defend the need to take time to consult the public on important issues. In the case of aerotropolis, planning committee chairperson Lloyd Ferguson argues his constituents deserve enough time to decipher the planning documents.

"It's not to delay -- it's to get it right," he said.

But Richard Koroscil, the CEO and president of the airport and the chairperson of the Chamber of Commerce, says the move denotes a lack of leadership.

"We're a community looking desperately for jobs, and here we are saying let's just park it for six months," he said after the committee's decision. "For half a year, we'll just sit on our hands. Why would we do that?"

There are other instances, on issues such as garbage bag limits, sign and animal control bylaws and controversial planning decisions, where council has delayed decisions, asking for new reports or new information.

Duncan MacLellan, an assistant professor of politics and public administration at Ryerson University, says delaying isn't good planning or good for economic growth. He argues local politicians will almost always choose to avoid alienating their constituents, even at the risk of being accused of waffling on tough calls.

"Voters have short-term memories," he said. "Whatever happened in 2006, most voters won't remember; but if the issue is on the table now, it's an election issue.

Thoughts? 

Comments

[Mike Russell]

Just another example of an incompetent city council shirking their responsibilities. This developement has been in the planning stages for years. More public consultation is not needed. It's time to vote.

Putting this off for the next council will surely set the whole project back another 3 or 4 years. They have the information they need, it's time for a decision to be made. Or could it be that they are afraid to. With the nuts from HPD and other fringe groups opposing any developement in this city, just maybe they are worried that the whole issue may come back to bite them come election time.

It's time for councillors to get in touch with the real citizens of this city and vote in favour of this project now. We need jobs in the City of Hamilton.

[steve sheen]

There are a lot of people that should be able to wake up to a job.Dont delay, build it,get the economy flowing,the news is of Canada's increasing economy,lets progress.

[Michelle Hruschka]

Mr Russell: So anyone who does not agree with with Aerotropolis is not a real citizen. Is that what you are saying.

As an in dividual, I can honestly say, you are the one that is out of touch with reality.

Ther are a lot of people in this city who disagree with Aerotropolis.

[JMeyer]

I sympathize with Concillor Ferguson's comment that we 'need to get this right'. What's in the balance are jobs for Hamiltonians and impact for some residents. We must weigh the two carefully and do the right thing. The problem with the Councillor's words is that this Council has had 4 years to get it right. Why delay now that the reports are ready for public input. This political delay is unconsionable in my opinion.
The comment by Fred that he will now 'lobby' Councillors to allow the report to go forward is 'a day late and a dollar short' I'm afraid. Where was the Mayor before the vote? AWOL, as usual.

Hamiltonians are losing jobs, traction and opportunities. We all lose in this equation.

[Mike Russell]

Ms. Hruschka. I know there are a lot of people who disagree with me. But I'll bet the majority would agree with me.

You're always advocating for the marginalized and under employed and yet you are opposing something that might actually bring jobs to this city.

Companies are not going to move here and hire people if we don't have the land for them to build on. Brown fields are not what they want. If they don't get what they want they will go elsewhere as they have for the last 40 years.

[Kathy Hagan]

I am concerned that the council delayed decisions on Aerotropolis until after the election.
There has been a lot of lobbying over the past years, debates, and many hours spent on the aerotrpolis plans.
I am also concerned that council routinely delays decisions and debate on issues that have already been flogged to death.
Council should get on with the work that citizens expect. It is my opinion that many of the delays are a result of the Mayor and councillors putting a spin on their election profiles.

[Michelle Hruschka]

Mr Russell: Are you so sure that the majority would agree with you.

So what type of jobs do you think would come, because in my view of things, it would be warehouse work, which would provide very few jobs, as to what is needed. Most likely they would be TEMP JOBS, which there is no job security, low wages, no access to benefits, forget even thinking about saving for retirement.

Though I am not a expert, I did do some research into the revitalization of brownfields, which has been going on down in the US. It would seem that they understand the importance of restructuring urban areas, not destroying green areas, where food could be grown. Food security is going to become a real issue, so if I was you I would be thinking about your grandchildren, great grand children and beyond.

With the mess in the Gulf of Mexico, oil is going to be coming under fire in more ways then one. I can see in the very near future the passenger and commercial flying is not feasible by any stretch of the imagination.

I think of the future generations, it seems that you do not. Why would we put all the money into something that is dying.

Besides all that, the building of the infrastructure is not going to deal with on going issues of flooding. A dollars which should be spend upgrading existing infrastructure should be the priority.

Think your taxes are high now, just wait.

Besides all that, keep covering up the land with asphalt, that does affect the water supply, but who care about all the that right.

Water is going to be a big battle coming up.

W

[Ed B]

We currently have 700 hectares of empty greenfield industrial land and over 1600 hectares of empty brownfield industrial lands. Maybe we should work on getting those utilized before spending 100 million dollars to service another 800 hectares.

If existing brownfield and greenfield lands were filling up with business maybe then we should be considering converting more greenfields.

If lands around the airport are serviced and business doesn't come you can bet that council will quickly rezone it residential so their developer buddies and buy it up to build more homes on and make huge money.

[coach handbags]

Hi ! I am very glad to found this blog. It was great to read your perspectives in this post! I really enjoy all that you fill your blog with.