Elections
Since the 1950s, most new residential and commercial development in Hamilton has been single-use suburban sprawl. Do you believe Hamilton needs to concentrate new development within the already-built area? Why or why not?
Responses to the question: "Since the 1950s, most new residential and commercial development in Hamilton has been single-use suburban sprawl. Do you believe Hamilton needs to concentrate new development within the already-built area? Why or why not?"
In This Page:
53 Candidate Responses (top)
| Mayor | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Davis, Jim | Yes | Being in construction, I have seen other cities build commercial/residential projects for a while now and don't understand why Hamilton hasn't adopted the same kind of projects. Milton has been building these for some time now where commercial is at street level and residential is built above it. In the case of downtown, we can only build upward for residential so why not adopt this strategy to grow the downtown core |
| Eisenberger, Fred | Yes | Yes. I support increased density in order to combat suburban sprawl. I support Places to Grow guidelines and the Greenbelt. I support inclusionary zoning and laneway units. |
| Gomes, Carlos | Yes | Yes I believe we need to continue developing within our already developed areas, farmers are important resources to help our city grow. We need farmer to want to stay farmers. Its not easy to be a farmer but they are a very important part of make Hamilton a city that can stand on its own and flourish. We have plenty of already abandoned or condemned builds in Hamilton, that can still repurpose, we can't allow ourselves to go down the same path as Torontonians, we need to build wisely and effectively instead of build till their no where else to build. Hamilton must become a leader instead of following things that don't work in first place. |
| Graydon, Edward HC | Yes | As to your question to whether new housing developments should be designated to central Hamilton,I would be neglectful as mayor if I did not support any development that first minimizes rural development in favour of developments in central Hamilton. I am not in favour of hight restrictions on builders that would like to achieve higher building possibilities. I am in favour of waiving hight restrictions in favour of maximizing Available lands that might be used for such a development.Although I am in favour of lifting the height restrictions I doubt very much this action will help ease homelessness.I am not so sure there is much any mayor can do on this issue except blow hot air .I would be inclined to restrict the acceptance of refuges and those immigrates that cross the border illegally in favour of finding shelter and homes for those that where born and raised in Hamilton.I would be inclined to show favouritism to already established Hamiltonians over new comers.I would not be in favour of calling Hamilton a Sanctuary city for this reason alone.I do not support Hamilton as a dumping ground for those with severe mental illness and extensive criminal records. I would however support those that have a history in Hamilton over those that might not. Without sounding or seeming to cliche ,I want to look after those that where born here first that are looking to improve there lives .I cannot see any other alternatives to this issue and would question how much growth is enough? The answer is to go higher and sell to those with money over servicing the poor and homeless.What good will come to Hamilton if all we do is service the poor and homeless we have enough of those it is time to service the rich that might want to move here.Ship our homeless back to Toronto without spending money supporting them might be a good start? |
| Pattison, Michael | Yes | All development in the City of Hamilton should be re-development in already built areas. First, the continuing cost for new infrastructure cannot continue as our existing infrastructure continues down the path of disrepair. Second, the need for food security in this ever changing climate must be addressed and all green space should be designated as such. Local farming should be an employment opportunity now, and secured for the future. |
| Schmid-Jones, Ute | Yes | Sprawl is expensive for cities, and the growing costs of spreading infrastructure beyond the boundaries of the existing city and then maintaining it will continue to strain the city budget, considering that distant subdivisions don't pay as much in property taxes as it costs city hall to maintain it. For that reason alone, it is obvious that Hamilton will have to maximize the value it receives from existing infrastructure in order to remain economically viable. Thankfully, this represents a real opportunity to improve the quality of life for all citizens of the city by building a thriving downtown core filled with amenities and opportunities that Hamilton residents can enjoy and that may encourage more tourism, in addition to growing the city's tax base. We can also choose to develop denser housing not only in the downtown core but also in current subdivisions that already have existing infrastructure |
| Sgro, Vito | N/A | Please use our website vitosgroformayor.ca as the the answer to the provided questions. |
| Tavares, Ricky | N/A | How much are you going to pay me ? $100 and I will communicate with you at your basic level. Otherwise you are useless to me and Hamilton. |
| Wozny, Mark | Yes | Construction of new development within the already-built area is something that I have focused on for a great many years.Suburban/Urban sprawl is prohibitively expensive, and in the past has proven to be a major subsidy for devvelopers. There is no sound reason why the average rate-payer should be compelled to shoulder the huge costs of urban sprawl.
I fought to preserve the Red Hill Valley for many years. While still in the planning stage, the project could not justify iteself given that there was some 42 years + of development lands north of Rymal Road. Unfortunately, the speculators, developers, money laundering people (and more, according to the RCMP) seem to have their way with City Council as the rule, rather than the exception. |
| Yan, Nathalie Xian Yi | Yes | we should concentrate on renovation adding value to the property we already have . Development is not the only model available to our economy. from manufacturing industry to the digital economy we must also consider the environment and have goal oriented models for sustainability |
| Ward 01 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Allen, Jason | Yes | I have been pretty vocal publicly about the fact that suburban greenfield development is an urban planning Ponzi Scheme. Under provincial law, we are only able to charge developers 80% of the cost of providing new services (rec centres, parks, roads, sewers, and even 911 service) to a new subdivision. And the rules against ‘gold plating’ those services often mean we can charge less than that. Development in our city needs to turn towards increasing densification on already serviced land, which will ensure higher property taxes per square foot on land that doesn’t require significant additional costs to provide services. |
| Anderson, Sharon | Yes | Yes concentration or densification within the built up area is required. This will result in a better use of our existing infrastructure and help decrease the lifecycle cost. An increased number of households sharing the same infrastructure should also allow for a lower municipal tax rate going forward. |
| Cole, Sharon | Yes | I do not support single-use suburban sprawl - I support innovative urban designs as an alternative to traditional housing space and I support mixed-use development (business, residential, entertainment, etc.) with a clear understanding that mixed-use historically comes at a premium, which means we also need to address affordability and inclusive access to those from multiple levels of income and background. Second, urban sprawl creates a whole set of additional considerations in the undeveloped environs of a municipality from infrastructure, water, sewers, transit and reliance on automobiles, policing, public safety, impact on the environment and agriculture, etc.
There will always be those that on the surface claim to support infill and intensification initiatives in existing neighborhoods as long as they are "not in my back yard". I believe we need to, as part of the education process, help reassure residents that such types of development will respect and apply safe, green technologies, which are not only good for the environment, but provide assurances to residents that re-development protects vibrant green spaces, wetlands, etc. |
| Eroglu, Ela | Yes | I support the policy preventing expanding the city out onto farmland and instead building "up" on infill sites and intensification. I think it is a good policy and it has a lot of benefits such as optimizing new and existing infrastructure, create complete communities, revitalize downtown, encourages public transit investment and for future employment and economic growth. However, the way we implement intensification policies requires judgment, and respect to the characteristics of the City. Every City is unique and has its own distinctive ecological, geological, historical and cultural values. Hamilton is a beautiful City with unique features of escarpment, lake, history and culture.
Intensification should accompany with by-laws that ensures that building design respects these unique characteristics of the City; creating friendly streets and places that are healthy, accessible, safe; and respecting Hamilton`s rich architectural heritage. |
| Geffros, Sophie | Yes | Yes, I do. Increasing density is the only way to ensure that we are both able to house more people and also that those same individuals have access to the services and resources necessary to live. Hamilton is in an affordable housing crisis, and as a resident of Ainslie Wood -- an area that in the 50s and 60s was home to suburban sprawl extending to the geographic boundaries of Dundas and Cootes Paradise -- I believe strongly that mixed-density neighbourhoods can be a positive thing. I am strongly committed to increasing the affordable and geared-to-income housing in our city, and given that resources that low-income and working class Hamiltonians rely on tend to be concentrated in the lower city and downtown core, we must increase the density of housing along transit lines. |
| Massie, Richard | Yes | Yes, we should treat land responsibly and regenerate run down brownfield sites and decaying buildings into compact, sustainable mixed use communities. Everyone should be able to walk to their local centre or take public transit that is maximized for efficiency.
|
| Miklos, Lyla | Yes | Urban sprawl is an inefficient and costly way to build a city. It also destroys the environment by eliminating invaluable green space and adding even more carbon pollution into our atmosphere. Intensification in urban areas enables those areas to thrive and become more vibrant. |
| Narducci, Linda | Yes | I do not think development should be concentrated on solely in these areas. Although there was in the past, rapid growth and development and a trend to living in suburbs, and perhaps it is still, the trend, however, appears to be shifting and changing. People are looking to live in urban areas that expose them to diverse cultures, accessibility resulting in less car ownership, they enjoy the urban sense of community and with working, socializing and living in a concentrated urban area rely heavily on several modes of transportation. Another trend that fuels the urban development and living there is the concern and care for the environment and the thumbprint they are leaving. |
| White, Harrison | Yes | Hamilton does need to concentrate new development in the already-built area. Intensification is a provincially mandated direction for city growth, according to the Growth Plan Act 2005, and the Golden Horseshoe Development from 2017. Intensification according to the province of Ontario, refers to any new residential development within the already existing built-up urban fabric of a given city, such as Toronto or Hamilton. Not only is it provincially mandated, but it is also the best direction that Hamilton could take. The City of Hamilton is facing an increase in debt level already, as we need to invest in capital infrastructure as well as service lands for economic prosperity and continued growth. The current infrastructure deficit is 3.5 billion dollars, a number that would only continue to increase if sprawl continues. Urban sprawl means implementing things like storm drains, streets, street lights, road lines, traffic lights etc. It means having to ensure we have staff capable to provide city services in the farthest regions of Hamilton. These are things that will cost Hamilton more money and are things the City of Hamilton is already having difficulty managing. Over 500 people in Hamilton with a life-threatening injury had to wait 20 minutes or longer in 2017. We are only spending HALF the recommended budget on implementing bike lanes, and our transit service is outdated and ineffective. These are challenges that we haven’t solved yet and are challenges that would only be aggravated through continued urban sprawl. Studies by the Neptis Foundation, an independent privately capitalized charity located in Toronto, found several major benefits to intensification. First and foremost, it prevents continued loss of green space throughout the area. Less urban sprawl means less reason to develop on our greenspaces or continue eroding the ever-decreasing Greenbelt. It will increase the use of public transportation and improve the service levels. Studies shown that when a city develops a high enough population density, desire to use automobiles as a method of transit decrease and other modes of transportation such as cycling, public transit and walking increase. Additionally, higher population density makes it easier to justify new routes for public transit as well as increases to the transit budget, the larger the population the service benefits, the larger the budget. Finally, Hamilton needs to concentrate new development on the already built area to ease the strain on our current infrastructure. Intensification has been shown to make more efficient use of urban infrastructure like sewer pipes and water pipes, as well as ‘soft’ infrastructure, like schools or social services. Basically, urban sprawl requires and expansion of our cities services and aggravates our weaknesses, but intensification allows us to avoid spreading our resources thin and provide a higher quality of life to all in the City of Hamilton. |
| Wilson, Maureen | Yes | Hamilton must concentrate its future development within the existing urban environment for four primary reasons:
1/ Financial There are cost savings to be had from more efficient urban form. The Halifax region, similar in size to Hamilton, calculated the annual cost of servicing an average suburban household at $3462 compared to an annual urban cost of $1416. (Halifax Regional Municipality - HRM: Quantifying the Costs & Benefits to HR, Residents, the Environment to Alternative Growth Scenarios. April 2013). The City of Edmonton calculated that 17 of 40 planned new developments would exceed a cost of $4 billion to residents over the next 60 years. (Diamond; Globe and Mail. May 11, 2018) Knowledge of this cost impact has been known for some time. A 1995 study conducted by Dr. Pamela Blais revealed that the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) could save $700 million to $1 billion annually with a more compact form of urban development. (Blais. Perverse Cities, 2010) Denser development can also generate significant revenues for a municipality. On behalf of interested cities, urban planner Joe Minicozzi calculates the property tax revenue from different kinds of development on a per hectare basis. He has proven that denser, mid-rise buildings in downtowns offer the best return on investment for cities (Minicozzi. The Smart Math of Mixed-use Development, Planetizen. 2011) Despite this fiscal imperative, Dr. Blais and others have shown there to be hidden subsidies and a pricing system that serve as disincentives to urban development. Dr. Blais revealed that from 2001 to 2011, approximately 7000 residential units were added to Hamilton’s urban area yet the area still suffered a loss of between 6000 to 7000 people. During the same period, approximately 10,000 units were added to Hamilton’s greenfield area with a net population gain of 35,000. Despite the hopeful discussions of urban renewal in Hamilton, it is not keeping pace with suburban expansion and not enough to stem urban population loss. 2/ Environmental Urban sprawl has resulted in the loss of natural areas and ecosystems with the fragmentation of forests and loss of wetland. Along with rising temperatures, this is the greatest threat to our biodiversity. The loss of natural surfaces and forests affects our water supply and water quality. Asphalt and concrete cannot absorb water to refill our aquifers. Finally, our land development pattern is dependent on the private automobile. The need to drive longer distances will continue to contribute to rising levels of harmful greenhouse gases. In addition, these developments must be serviced by energy such as garbage and recycling trucks along with the extension of pumped water sources. As Ward 1 Hamilton City Councillor, I support a full and thorough review of Hamilton’s development charges bylaw to ensure it is structured in such a way as to remove disincentives to urban development. 3/ Stablization and Enrichment of Existing Neighbourhoods Intensification has the potential to stabilize vulnerable neighbourhoods and address declining classroom enrolment and support existing commercial activity. 4/ Public Health There are numerous negative health impacts associated with sprawl beginning with injurious air emissions from the greater reliance on the private automobile and the need to driver longer distance without a sufficient public transit system. There is a also growing body of research linking illness to social isolation. Single use development (i.e. only residential) combined with an absence of density and reliance on the private automobile means that older residents are at risk. |
| Ward 02 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Daljeet, Suresh Venodh | Yes | Yes, we should have new development right across the city. There is still significant single use development happening mostly on the outskirts. I think condo developments will bring people to the city and it should happen in both the lower city and on the mountain. |
| Farr, Jason | Yes | I believe in this strongly and it has been my focus as Councillor. We have abundant opportunities to build "up" in Ward 2 and other built areas of the city. Our Planning policies, like TOC, Nodes and Corridors, LRT, the NEW Downtown Secondary Plan, the James Mobility Hub, West Harbour Setting Sail Secondary Plan, CIPA's and more are indicators that we (Council) are supportive of growth in built areas.
As most RTH readers and contributors will appreciate, these efforts speak to both Hamilton answering Provincial policies like Places to Grow and the Provincial Policy Statement. As well, with the infrastructure already in place (although in need of upgrades in some areas), in both short and long term, this form of growth is cost effective to the taxpayer. I should also add that we have an abundance of evidence that urban living is increasingly desirable. While some families may still long for the white picket fence in a new suburban survey, more and more want to shake the car, live more active lifestyles (walking and biking to shops etc) and raise a family in the vibrant heart of our city. |
| Kroetsch, Cameron | Yes | Yes, I do think Hamilton needs to concentrate new development within already-built areas. This is important for a number of reasons. In part, because the increase of suburban sprawl requires infrastructure improvements that cost, on average, twice as much as they would cost in already-built areas. This sprawl also means that many people are required, because of existing transit area rating, to purchase and drive cars. The development of new land ignores the existence of already underutilized downtown parking lots and other sites that would be put to better use in Hamilton’s core. Finally, moving people away from the vital services they require and that already exist in the core can have a marginalizing effect that not all can overcome. Those who rely on transit, need affordable housing, and require access to social services and supports are put in even more precarious positions when they’re forced to live in Hamilton’s suburban rather than urban areas. |
| Smith, Nicole | Yes | Hamilton very much needs to concentrate new development in the already-built area. We need to strengthen our tax base without further stretching our infrastructure (especially given the $3.5 billion deficit) so that we can improve the quality of life for everyone in the city. |
| Tennant, Mark | Yes | First and foremost, the communities input must be considered before moving forward with any new development or renewal plans. The neighbourhood associations would advocate for the best interest of the community and filter all ideas before presenting to their council representative. Once the majority of the community understands that they have a voice, it would encourage more neighbourhood association memberships and a stronger collective partnership to the betterment of Ward 2. I support the mixed-use development plan for downtown Hamilton. Urban sprawl draws development to the suburbs and away from the downtown. I would advocate for private and public redevelopment and renewal of already built areas to draw new entrepreneurs, singles and families to the downtown to live and work. Blended commercial and residential use with entertainment and cultural attractions. Open green space and active play areas with vehicle free sections to promote a residential feel. If vacant storefronts are available to be purchased publically, I would advocate for a tax break for urban entrepreneurs to begin small businesses. The Secondary Plan includes the development of 5000-8000 new dwellings in the downtown area. |
| Ward 03 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Bureau, Alain | Yes | |
| Farr, Laura | Yes | We absolutely need to refocus our development in already-built areas as we need to intensify our density downtown where areas are serviced. That is the most efficient use of our tax dollars, instead of subsidizing surburban builds that are not cost-effective in terms of servicing. |
| Kuruc, Ned | Maybe | I believe that there should be a balance of further development. There are benefits to further developing single-family homes, as well as multi-family homes in urban areas. Housing is a crucial issue facing both ward 3 and the entire city. Focusing on geared-to-income housing in ward 3 will be a primary issue of my tenure, should I be elected. Although multi-family housing development is required in the ward, it is important that the development fit into the community it is built, is financially accessible to those who require housing and takes all necessary measures to mitigate any negative environmental impact. |
| Nann, Nrinder | Yes | Yes, Hamilton needs to focus on in-fill. Why? Because it's what makes sense on so many levels.
We need to densify along major streets and transit corridors because: * It will create new housing developments, giving more people a range of more affordable options for home ownership. * It will help spurn commercial development, and jobs. * New residential and business units mean a bigger tax base for the city * It is much more cost efficient to densify the already built area than it is to build new roads, sidewalks and sewers and then have to also maintain them. |
| Smith, Dan | Yes | We absolutely need to look at ways to increase density in our core. Denser housing is more cost effective. The cost of running extra sewer, and other utility lines, roads and servicing them to urban sprawl is not efficient. |
| Sprague, Kristeen | Yes | I believe that Hamilton needs to make the most of existing urban space in ways that benefit the people who live there, and not developers. Unfortunately, a lot of residential space is not used because the upkeep of public housing has been appalling, while too much concentration of urban renewal has been for developers and landlords. We desperately need urban development for people who already live in our communities, and not for people who are looking to develop or invest in our community for the sake of their own profit. |
| Ward 04 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Merulla, Sam | Yes | Yes, in order to facilitate sustainability. Hence, my leadership on inner city redevelopment for nearly 2 decades. |
| Ward 05 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Yes | ||
| Maldonado, Juanita | Yes | My focus is to preserve the natural, and historic value of our distinct communities. It is important to raise awareness and promote conversation with residents that jobs will grow out of small business promotion, and the construction industry in our City, and that “building up” is a natural move forward. As jobs are created, workers spend their money in our local community and everybody wins. This can be done effectively by encouraging civic engagement and addressing concerns BEFORE deals are signed. |
| Ward 06 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Jackson, Tom | No | No, I’ve always believed in “choice” for any individual’s primary investment, that being their home. |
| Taylor, Timothy | No | New residential and commercial single use suburban sprawl is a product of what consumers desire. In general, people no longer see raising a family with two children in an apartment as a preferred option. Whether this shift was created by developers is a topic for debate perhaps, but the fact is people want detached housing. Not everyone can afford it, land is becoming less available (especially in the core) and that is driving up pricing. I think Hamilton has historically not done enough to preserve historical features of its core, to our own detriment. Downtown has become a mishmash of old and new, but unfortunately not always in the most charming of ways. I believe Hamiltons new development strategy has been sound over the years, but believe the policy surrounding maintenance and upgrading of existing buildings needs work. |
| Ward 07 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Benson, Steve | No | There have been studies showing new home owners want the suburban sprawl, young owners want to start a family and want their kids to play in a safe private yard. BUT the city directed by the Wynne government in 2013 has mandated Intensification. Intensification is allowing builder to pack as many houses/people into the smallest area possible. In theory these (mostly) three story town homes were suppose to be low cost to help young families get into the housing market. What we are seeing is the opposite currently. One only needs to look to the Stoney Creek Mountain where intensification is taking over. Complex after complex of tall thin town homes packed tightly together almost to the street. These so called low cost homes are selling for upwards of $550,000. This completely defeats the purpose. One the out skirts of the city you can buy single homes for in the $400,000. So young families are actually being forced out of Hamilton. WHY? Intensification was suppose to integrate with the neighbourhoods they are built in, intensification is not suppose to disturb the current infrastructure and cause havoc. The City is neglecting all their own rules for more tax money? and land transfer tax? This is a big problem and will get worse if allowed. If you look on the City of Hamilton’s website for Intensification you will see a nice city proposal describing how Intensification will be implemented. It seems they have forgotten to read it themselves. Look to the Sonoma Homes project on Upper Sherman and Rymal area it has caused increased stress on local residence and created uncertainty with the neighbourhood. The city should have forced developers to redesign and reduce the vacancy rate in the area and not just delay the vote and force the OMB to decide. City Council in my opinion failed the citizens of ward 7 and are failing the people in Hamilton by continuing to expand the city outwards by building intensification homes. |
| Kazubek, Joseph | Maybe | I believe that we need to be focused on staying ahead of the housing crisis that is always nipping at the tail, we are currently facing affordable housing issues as more and more residents are becoming homeless or on the edge of it, with that being said, we need to find the best way to keep up with the need of new units, but also ensuring that affordability for the residents of Hamilton is always being considered first. |
| MacIntyre, Dan | Yes | For far too long we’ve built further and further out. The costs with building and servicing the infrastructure needed for these new areas far outweigh the positives of these new developments. The city has fostered traffic congestion nightmares along Rymal Road and Stone Church Road. The low density developments coupled with poor public transportation has created communities where having access to a vehicle to drive is a necessity. . This all goes without mentioning the fact that we continue to increase the distance between farmland and the consumer which hits us in the wallet at some point. |
| McMullen, Geraldine | Maybe | Hamilton would benefit by considering many options for new development including the already built areas. New development must include affordable housing and easy access to transit, thereby reducing the need for car dependency.
While ward 7 is relatively well developed at this point, any new development would have to be specifically defined. Solutions must be acceptable to current residents in neighbourhoods where any proposed development would occur as it could have an impact on taxes, residential satisfaction, and the potential for infrastructure over-usage. |
| Pauls, Esther | Maybe | Hamilton needs to be competitive with other communities in the golden horseshoe. The focus should be on intensification however it can not be at the expense of not having development. Builders respond to what the market requires. Small units and affordability could be accommodated in already built areas but appropriate zoning is required. |
| Ward 08 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Danko, John-Paul | Yes |
Ward 8 is nearly built out (in its' current form) and the population of the Ward is not projected to increase significantly in the next twenty years. However, the population of the City of Hamilton as a whole is projected to grow by 30% within the next 20 years. New car-dependent greenfield development on the south mountain will have a major impact on the quality of life in Ward 8 where residents already have major concerns with traffic congestion and speeding at 2018 population levels. It is well established that sprawl development is heavily subsidized by denser inner suburbs, urban centers and urban commercial development. As a first step, it is clear that greenfield developers should pay 100% of the lifecycle costs of any new development. In Ward 8 the Upper James corridor is mostly low density strip-malls and converted single-family housing. I see this corridor as a fantastic opportunity for new transit oriented low rise, mixed use residential/commercial development. |
| Wicken, Colleen | Yes | I am confident that you are well aware in the Provincial mandate of Places to Grow to curb Urban Sprawl. In Ward 8 we have recently witnessed the closing of Mountain Secondary School creating a large green space which will developed to include affordable housing and as there is no safe play space for children within the boundary of the Yeoville neighbourhood, a play structure will be part of the project. |
| Ward 10 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Beattie, Jeff | Yes | Hamilton needs a a better mix of development, including both brownfield and greenfield builds. I'm in favour of rebuilding older parts of Hamilton's core with higher density development, while allowing lower density in our outlying areas. At the end of the day whether in the City's core or in the suburbs, development and redevelopment needs to 'fit' and reflect the community in which it is occurring. |
| Ward 12 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Marley, Kevin | Yes | The city is growing and ward 12 has seen its fair share of that. However, with this growth like we need infrastructure to keep up with the increased demand. I think the city needs to be better at helping development in the already-built areas. Relaxing zoning and making it easier for developers would free up a lot of wasted potential downtown. There is a lot of room to grow especially in Ward 12 but it needs to be done right. We need to plan for the future. |
| Scime, John | Yes | I believe that suburban development needs to slow down, and the focus be generated towards those areas that have the viable resources and infrastructure to handle such an infill and density. The rejuvenation of the LRT corridor would assist in this 5-7 year very deliberate planning stage for the outskirts. The city continues to build fast and furious to gain density because we have to, not because we think it is the right decision. These forced decisions will eventually come full circle with compounded problems. Slow it down and impact plan for future development. |
| Ward 13 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Gelder, Rich | Yes | Yes, I believe we need to put an end to suburban sprawl which puts onerous costs on the city to service these hinterland areas. Rather, development ought take the form of dense, infill, however still respecting the local character of certain areas of the city. As a starting point, higher and denser development ought be incentivized and diverted to the LRT corridor. |
| Mitchell, Pamela | N/A | Declined to answer |
| Vanderbeek, Arlene | Yes | Yes I do believe Hamilton needs to concentrate new development within the built area, not only to protect the integrity of our rural areas, but to utilize the built infrastructure and intensify in appropriate areas of the City, close to services and where vertical taxation will offer relief to the tax levy. |
| Ward 14 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Iszkula, Robert | Yes | In order to prosper, our city needs to embrace more residents and more employers, who will share the infrastructure costs by adding tax revenue. Sprawl costs more to service than it brings in from new tax assessments, so by necessity we must increase our density. I will support adding residential and employment density, especially downtown where the infrastructure is already in place. |
| Whitehead, Terry | Yes | Yes.
1.) To address the encroachment on vibrant agricultural land. 2.) I believe that the GRIDS clearly identified growth related density throughout the city. I am satisfied with the targets; they make sense. Certainly creating higher density along nodes and corridors takes advantage of the infrastructure that's already in place. 3.) I have demonstrated my support of this approach by supporting the two 10 storey buildings being built at Rymal and Garth Streets and the medium densities along West 5th. |
| Wilson, Bryan | Yes | We do need to have development within the built up areas as we grow into a larger and larger city our downtown needs to be denser in its development as space is limited and to sprawl out is expensive. You need the infrastructure that goes along with that and most cities don't have it or don't expand it until after the development is there at which point it becomes very expensive to do as well as a major hassle for those living within those communities. To build upon land where infrastructure exists maximizes space and what we've already invested in and grows our population and tax base at the same time. |
| Ward 15 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| McKechnie, Susan | Maybe | The issue of development is challenging for all municipalities. Hamilton has a magnified challenge, as it comprises nearly 1,200 square kilometres. The implication of this vast geographical area is that it confuses the plan on where to develop. Location is critically important as the municipality spans nearly 60 kilometres east to west and families base their decisions about where to live against the backdrop of where they need to work. This means that significant parts of the geography of Hamilton will be substantially more attractive to residents who must commute to work in Toronto or Mississauga or Waterloo versus those that might potentially work in Niagara. The City Centre will not be as attractive as alternatives in Winona or Binbrook or Waterdown for many of these families.
The economic reality faced by families is making some of the outer regions of Hamilton substantially more attractive and suitable based on residents’ need to commute outside of Hamilton. One of the first steps is to intercept this reality and to attract industry and progressive companies to core urban areas offering well-paying jobs so that new and existing residents and their families can live and work in Hamilton. This in turn will create demand to live in the already built area and will enhance the argument for further intensification. Residential intensification without appropriate focus on economic development will only further exacerbate the daily exodus of residents continuing to travel to jobs outside of the city. Today 1 in 3 Hamilton workers commutes out of the city for work. The provincial average is 1 in 4. |
Response Summary (top)
| Brief Response | Count | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 42 | 79.2% |
| No | 3 | 5.7% |
| Maybe | 5 | 9.4% |
