Elections

Edward H.C. Graydon, Candidate for Mayor in Hamilton Municipal Election 2010

Details page for this candidate.

In This Page:

Candidate Details (top)

NameGraydon, Edward H.C.
ElectionHamilton Municipal Election 2010
AreaMayor
PartyN/A
Votes404
Email edwardgraydon@gmail.com
Website http://wwwedwardgraydon.blogspot.com/
Home
Business
Fax

← Back to Candidates

Responses to Questions (top)

QuestionBrief ResponseFull Response
For your campaign, will you be accepting donations from corporations or unions? If so, why? If not, why not? No I believe that running for Mayor is one of civic responsibility, and believe that taking any contributions will distract from the idea to serve all voters fairly. I believe that if a mayoral candidate does not have the personal funds to run, then they are in the wrong arena! Now that I have decided to run for mayor of Hamilton, it is my goal that I have absolutely no possibility of showing favouritism or that my name be attached to it. I hope to help all people rich and poor to make Hamilton a healthier, cleaner and more vibrant city. I truly believe that all projects in the future should be based on their own merit. I believe Hamilton's disadvantaged need the help the most if our city is to move forward.
Do you support Hamilton's LRT proposal? If so, what will you do to ensure Hamilton's success in building LRT? If not, why do you oppose it? No I do not oppose the expansion of mass transportation, but I question the usefulness of light rail. If light rail is what the voters want then I will make sure they get it, but as your Mayoral candidate I believe that much more pressing issues exist.

I had a friend that was a brain surgeon that worked at the General, and I have never forgotten his comments, that brain cancer was so prevalent in Hamilton. Arlene Mintz was the surgen that was exposed to so many cases, and a friend of the Wasserman's of Hamilton. I am not opposed to dealing with issues of mass transportation (LRT) has long as we tackle the issues that the steel plants place on our health. The time for real change is "now" I believe that we can do it all.

I will add that there is little question that during the construction of this project, that there will be massive retail losses. I am not the mayor that started this make work project, and believe that some will be very displeased during the process. I believe that some will lose their livelihood.
Is Hamilton doing enough to support and encourage new investment in our older neighbourhoods? If not, what should the City be doing? No Bernie, Fred, Larry, and Bob and the BIA Groups: What is going on inside your heads? You can not point the finger directly at the need for process as the culprit, for inaction on development. I have experienced the red tape at City hall first hand, but I kind of enjoy it, "you make it really quite a challenge". I believe that there is no political will to allow for progress, I have witnessed a spray paint artist or tagger, "vandal" single-handedly bring property values down all over the city, the tagger goes by the KEENUR or the KEEN, and I believe the owners of the Pearl have him on tape doing damage. Why not make the vandals pay! Why not make things happen or at least try I believe you are in capable of doing your jobs I believe the current BIA of Downtown is derelict in duty, of bringing excitement and change of any kind, and as mayor if elected "I would give them immediate notice" they are not capable of doing the job.
Hamilton's Cycling Master Plan has Council approval. However, the implementation timeline is very long and ward councillors can block individual bike lane projects. Do you support accelerating the completion of a continuous bicycle network and other initiatives like a bike sharing program and better access up and down the Escarpment? Why or why not? Yes I support the accelerated completion of the bike lanes and support the bicycle network that maybe in the works, but as a very competent biker and a true pioneer in this area, I will only support it if all cyclists get a licence and learn the rules of the road.

I believe that this is a great program, but also expect all those using the infrastructure to help pay the costs, I would suggest that a bike licence be issued to those people that take a safety course and all fines be strictly enforced for those that decide to not obey the road safety act.

I believe that a car wins out every time. When an accident occurs, I want all precaution to be taken to insure the roads are safe to both car and cyclist.

I know first hand the dangers of the road, and am lucky to have survived. It is for this reason that I ask that safety lessons be ensured before this is moved forward in hast.

Teach each person safety lessons and pay a $75 yearly road maintenance fee and I will help to make it happen.
Council is poised to vote on the Airport Employment Growth District, a 3,000 acre plan to expand the urban boundary around Hamilton International Airport for employment lands. Do you support this plan? Why or why not? No I am totally 100 per cent opposed to this development and believe that the toxic sites along Burlington Street are the answer to the cities problems. To me it is hypocritical to believe in saying that you are against green space development all while proposing to develop it.

I believe it is far better to help those that are suffering the side effects of toxic sites in the urban core of are city, than to start new development and leave the old toxic sites behind with no action being taken. I believe that the site of the now US steel plant is prime land for future development all while creating 30,000 jobs in the dismantling of the plant.

Although the Spectator calls the closing in part of US steel a disaster, I would disagree. The fact that the steel industry in Hamilton is close to dead or dying is for many the best thing to ever happen to Hamilton. I truly believe the steel industry should sell out "NOW" to investors that would like to see other industry on the lands where the steel industry now
resides.

The lands that are currently occupied by the steel industry will always be zoned industrial, but in order to benefit from those lands, billions need to be invested in their clean up. If jobs are needed in Hamilton, then start by the immediate hiring of those that want work in the dismantling of the plants. The 30,000 jobs would be almost immediate if I was elected mayor, or whoever is elected "the outcome should remain the same".

Hamilton's future is brighter without the steel industry in it. We can not bring new industry untill the old industry is gone.

The employment of 900 workers is not worth the side effects that are felt by all Hamiltonians.

I look forward to all concerns regarding my vision, and can promise the funds for the future!

Pros to the dismantling!

* Shareholders of the stock may realise some value for the shares, as they may become delisted in the near future, or close to it.
* Cleaner air.
* High employment for at least 7 years
* Union wages during the dismantling
* Cleaning up of industrial lands for future use
* Dramatic reductions in cancer {Brain and other}
* Dramatic reductions in asthma for all ages
* Cleaner and brighter skies
* 30,000 jobs
* Pensioners keep the pensions with cost of living increase
* No lay off of any workers that want to participate in the future goals
* Over 5.5 billion dollars invested in clean up of the Hamilton shore lines

Cons to the dismantling

* None
Should we spend the Future Fund to build a Pan Am / Ticat stadium on the CP Rail Yard lands? Why or why not? No The answer is "NO" the stadium on long wood is a terrible sight for Hamilton. I believe "it will kill" the realestate values in that area of the city. Most of all there is no area to allow for retail, it is not a destenation point and never will be.That site will not bring prosperity to the area or the city the way the west harbour would have been able. The future fund should be running away from supporting this possible location.

"Kill it" before it happens.
Many observers argue that Council meetings could be more respectful and professional. Do you agree? If so, what will you do to change this? Yes The attitude that has been shown by the front running candidates has been shameful. I am certain that if voters had been aware of the child like actions from the three front runners or witnessed it first hand, then to me there is little question that the front three would in fact be the last three. Swearing at debates because of bickering between the front runners is questionable behaviour at best, the attitude that has been shown to fair play by the leading candidates is nonexistent.

I believe that many of the neighborhood organisation have been disappointed by the actions of the top three, does this mean that they will continue the attitude when elected to the office of Mayor or that they are incapable? More than likely it is better to promote yourself with some sense of fair play and not expose your child like behaviour.

The pattern of behavior that has been promoted by the top three will continue and will be present in council if they are elected back in. It is the Mayors responsibility to promote fairness in actions towards all people and groups.

If candidates wants to be recognized for this type of behaviour "than what can I do", but try not to be party in these actions.
The City of Hamilton has committed to doubling transit ridership by 2020. Do you support this goal? If so, how would you realize it? Yes The easiest way to achieve this goal and to take in the issues that are surrounding poverty into account, are to lower the bus fares immediately back to $1.50. The issues surrounding poverty will not be tackled in any meaningful way unless action is taken. Rhetoric is so common place during election time, it matters not what mayor is elected to office, what matters is that action be taken. To me it makes very little common sense to be talking about LRT all while many Hamiltonians are living hand to mouth.

If I were mayor I would immediately lower the bus fares back to $1.50 with the goal of bringing the city closer to its goals surrounding the environment. If by lowering the fares brings ridership up and allows more money into the pockets of our citizens, all while improving the health and air quality of Hamiltonian's then I say implement change "now".

At this time of year many politicians are all of a sudden bikers, but I question the timing, I truly believe that biking is a great way to get around with added feeling of freedom ,but for many the factor of time does not allow the luxury when holding down a job or two.

All forms of transportation are needed ,but I suggest that we make access to some a little easier and cheaper in the short run ,not the long run.

I rarely see Bob, Larry or Fred waiting for the bus and it is for this reason I suggest talk is cheap and action talks louder than words.