Elections
Do you support completing the Mid-Peninsula Highway? Why or why not?
Responses to the question: "Do you support completing the Mid-Peninsula Highway? Why or why not?"
In This Page:
5 Candidate Responses (top)
| Hamilton Centre | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Andrea Horwath | No | The NDP's first priority for reducing congestion is to make transit more accessible and affordable to Ontarians. Second, we believe we can make much more efficient use of highways - for example, by speeding up the planned implementation of high-occupancy vehicle lanes. There may be cases where the expansion and extension of highways is necessary, but all cost-effective and environmentally preferable options should be explored first - something we believe the Liberal government has failed to do. Historically, we have raised concern about planned highway expansions that threaten the Greenbelt, such as the Bradford by-pass, the GTA West highway to Guelph, and the Mid-Peninsula highway. We will continue to raise those concerns in the future. |
| Christopher Lawson | Maybe | I have not seen the plans for this highway. I can imagine possible pros and cons that I would like answered before making a commitment on this issue. Will it increase commerce sufficiently to cover its costs? Budgets are tight, but I suspect that it would more than pay for itself in the long run. Can we afford the short run costs right now? What type of properties, watersheds, ecosystems, etc. would be affected and how would they be affected? I would love to see the environmental studies on this plan. |
| Michael Baldasaro | Yes | Yes I do. Like it or not, highways are what moves us and gridlock demands something be done. |
| Peter Ormond | No | Pave over Paradise and call it a parking lot? No way. Why are we so obsessed with pavement? I called it today's black plague.
The proposed highway is eliminating precious farmland. It's no wonder that many community groups are opposed to the mid-pen highway. To pave over this land simply to create more space for cars and thereby spur supposed "economic development" would be a very large mistake and completely ignore the opposition of the community. This all part of the Hamilton Aerotropolis agenda that has been pushed forward for decades. One main driver of the mid-pen is the Chairman of Tradeport, the private company operating Hamilton Airport - Ron Foxcroft - who interestingly enough also owns a trucking company and lives in Burlington! Another promoter is Richard Koroscil, head of Tradeport, the company that operates Hamilton Airport. Interestingly enough, Mr. Koroscil is Hamilton's representative on the Metrolinx board member. The Greens would call for an immediate investigation into Hamilton's airport including all board members, land holdings, transactions, business interests, and conflicts of interest of the various parties involved. I'm puzzled as to why none of Hamilton's current MP's or MPP's have been speaking out against this outdated mega-transport project that is seriously hurting the quality of life for Hamilton's citizens. Another issue to review is the fact that airplanes are flying over the city as part of the airport's 24 hour operation. I imagine that the flight path likely specifies a route that skirts the downtown core so that hundreds of thousands aren't disturbed in their sleep each night. This will be another aspect of the review. We're now in an era of new perspectives on car ownership. I personally haven't had a car for over a year. We use Hamilton CarShare when necessary. You can rent by the half hour, and the savings are huge. Besides no car to scrape off every morning, it's really made us resort to community building modes of transportation - like walking and biking. The Mid-Pen? No way. Let's build transportation infrastructure that will benefit the community - like LRT and improved GO / VIA links. To reach this point, though, we'll have to delve into and dissect the decades-long shroud of secrecy surrounding Hamilton's Aerotropolis project, and other projects that benefit a few at the expense of the community. |
| Robert Kuhlmann | No | Why not let those affected, the electorate vote on it and decide whether or not they want the highway? What right does the government have to reach into the pockets of the people they are supposed to be protecting and extract money from them without their consent to build something (also without their consent) that they never wanted in the first place? Answer: absolutely none! It's called theft! If a private citizen did that, they would be arrested! Government should be subject to to the same laws as every individual citizen is. To do otherwise is a mockery of justice. Government has no right being in the construction business in the first place! The purpose of government is to PROTECT people from the initiation of aggressive force by others, not to initiate it by using its power to forcibly extract funds from the citizenry at the threat of incarceration if they don't comply. However, due to the vast scope of such a project, IF the electorate votes in favour of such a project and IF the same electorate votes in favour of having the government oversee the bidding and tending of contracts for the project, in order to protect the taxpayers from fraud and deception, that I have no problem with.. as long as it is mandated by the voters and the voters still get the final say on which companies get the contract to build the highway. It's their money, they have a right to decide how it's spent. |
Response Summary (top)
| Brief Response | Count | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 1 | 20.0% |
| No | 3 | 60.0% |
| Maybe | 1 | 20.0% |
5 Candidates Have Not Responded (top)
| Hamilton Centre | ||
|---|---|---|
| Anthony Gracey | ||
| Don Sheppard | ||
| Donna Tiqui-Shebib | ||
| Robert Szajkowski | ||
| Steven Passmore | ||
