|
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
|---|
| Agostino, Ralph |
Yes |
Yes; Hamilton’s history needs to be recognized and protected, Hamilton’s Heritage is important |
| DiMillo, Mark |
Maybe |
Protecting built heritage is important. We travel across the world to what we call old world countries and we marvel at the heritage and architecture from many years ago. However, let's not assume that just because it was built 100 years ago that every building is worth preserving. Like most things it requires a balanced approach. After all there is no sense in not tearing something down or designating a building to be of heritage significance, and then sit back and watch it decay due to budgeting constraints. Everything in moderation and with consideration. Also, encouraging new developments to achieve design elements that will be a foundation for future generations to look upon as being of heritage significance worth preserving is also a welcoming pursuit. |
| Green, Matthew |
Yes |
Hamilton's current residential real estate competitive advantage is our neighbourhood's built heritage. The revitalization of our city ought to be mandated to include an extensive heritage asset inventory protecting the architectural integrity of City for generations to come. As Hamiltonians we do not own this city...we are merely stewards of it. |
| Mejia, Victor |
Yes |
yes to a point we need to protect are history buildings but if its beyond saving and cost 5 times more to save it. look at reviewing it futher |
| Omazic, Drina |
Yes |
Hamilton’s built and natural heritage require both stewardship and continuous maintenance. We can always do better to conserve and enhance the City’s built and natural heritage resources. |
| Simmons, Tim |
Yes |
Yes, in key areas like our downtown, however, it should not come at the cost of losing publicly owned land to profiteers. |
