A few choice words for those holding Hamilton's growth hostage

The words are the same seven words the brilliant mind of the recently lost George Carlin made us laugh nervously at so many years ago and will never be uttered on this blog. That is where the comparison between the mother f*!@er a!#$oles at the Mayors office, City Hall and Liuna Station ends.

Lister Block is dead

This week has been a cornucopia of lies, ineptitude and border line corruption down at Hamilton City Hall. Lets start in reverse order, on Friday it was revealed that on this Monday Hamilton will return a $7-million cheque to the province after failing to reach a deal to save the Lister Block and restore dignity to a joke of a downtown.

LIUNA and partner Hi-Rise have decided to cry like babies and take their ball home after the city rightfully accused them of dropping the ball way to many times. LIUNA served official notice to the city yesterday that their compromise in the $25-million negotiations is off the table. LIUNA also advised the city that its other planned developments on King William, including replacing the fallen Balfour building, are on hold. Plus, they said they will fight an attempt to put a heritage designation on the Thomas Building beside the Lister on James Street North.

Why is LIUNA saying they've had enough making compromises?, even though the city has had to walk on egg shells trying to get a working deal together. The Lister deal fell apart this week after both sides couldn't agree on the terms of a $1-million guarantee on the second phase of the project.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger appealed to the province yesterday morning for another extension of the hefty grant, which was intended to make the deal more affordable for the city. He was flatly refused. Rightfully, the province had already extended the deadline twice.

The stymied deal,

Councillors want the additional development to offset the cost of buying the Lister. It will cost taxpayers an extra $1.3 million a year for city offices compared to existing leases.

The developers proposed they would get their guarantee back if they built a commercial building or seniors home of at least 65,000 square feet, or 130,000 square feet of residential space. Either development would generate $550,000 a year in taxes for the city -- just $50,000 less than originally requested by council.

But LIUNA also wanted a sliding scale if they built a smaller development. The union would only lose the entire $1 million if they built less than 40,000 square feet. If they were between 40,000 and 60,000, they would only give back a part of the guarantee.

Think about how that looks to Hamilton taxpayers, to developers with an interest in downtown redevelopment, and to Queen's Park. It looks like our local government is so dysfunctional, so parochial, so short-sighted and outright ineffective, it couldn't find adequate common ground, even for a $7-million grant.

This is unfair to the hardworking people of Hamilton. There is adequate blame to go around all parties in the Lister negotiations. The developers have been inconsistent about project components and their willingness to commit to guarantees. And the childish rhetoric emanating from LIUNA on the subject in recent weeks hasn't been helpful.

In a reasonable world outside the vacuume of council chambers, the parties involved would realize what's at stake and work right through to the Monday deadline to find compromise and salvage the grant money. Sadly, that's probably not going to happen, which raises the unfortunate question: Now what? Try your spin on that one Mayor Fred.

Eisenberger leaked tape scandal(see video at the bottom of the post)

If this story wasn't so pathetic it would be funny. Stoney Creek Councillor Brad Clark admits to circulating the stolen tape that landed Mayor Fred Eisenberger in hot water for leaking confidential information, but stops short of admitting to stealing the tape himself.

Clark says he gave a digital file and transcript of the tape to a Hamilton Community News reporter and his best buddies councillors Sam Merulla and Scott Duvall out of what he says is "compelling public interest."

"The mayor is the gentleman who admonished city council for breaching codes of conduct for talking about personnel matters ... and then I get this package (showing) that he had clearly done what he had admonished people for doing."

Eisenberger, who has asked for a police investigation of the missing tape and a city review of his apparent code of conduct violation. Meanwhile, Duvall kept his big mouth shut, on the other hand Merulla known famously for his run off at the mouth if you ever catch a city council meeting in person or on the local public access station, pathetically tries to cover his ass arguing, if that was the goal to distribute the tape as a way to "whistleblow", he(Clark) wouldn't have distributed the file and transcripts so selectively.

Merulla believes Clark wanted to politically embarrass the mayor for his own purposes and tried to use him to do it. Right!(sarcasm) Wanna buy some real estate right for development, needs a little fixing up.

Here's where it sounds like another episode of the Sopranos, Clark tells Merulla the story of the mayor's presumed code violation should be told as soon as possible and suggests Merulla should pass the files on to reporters. Clark refuses to say who provided him with the files. But it's clear from his e-mail that he had been in contact with someone who allegedly had access to the mayor(Who's Deepthroat?).

A friend of both councillor's regularly recorded the mayor's interviews Clark said in the e-mail to Merulla but does not want his name mentioned because he is suing the city for wrongful dismissal. The newspaper crack team of investigative reporters(if you want to know where the best place to eat is) learned that Ian Dovey, Eisenberger's former communications adviser who taped some of the mayor's media calls, is suing the city for breach of contract. Eisenberger let Dovey go last summer after five months on the job.(the man in the shadows is revealed! Is this just a ruse!)

Meanwhile, council has directed city staff to hire an outside investigator to review whether Eisenberger broke council's code of conduct by revealing in-camera information in an off-the-record interview with reporter Andrew Dreschel. Any off-the-record conversation is strictly confidential. God! haven't we learned yet from these dumb celebs who get caught doing something they shouldn't have on tape. Get rid of the evidence!

It gets better, Clark brushes off any suggestion he himself may have violated the code of conduct by circulating the Eisenberger interview. The code forbids councillors from disclosing any confidential information to the public. Clark believes he's clean because he merely distributed a transcript of an interview.

Media in this city is becoming more like a gossip column every day. It's no secret they are hurting for revenues so they rely on this type of crap. "Leaked" or down right stolen information that finds it's way into the media hands is rarely divulged for compelling public interest. More than enough it's released to serve a personnel agenda. Both Eisenberger and Clark, who have been banging the integrity drum louder than any other members of council and now both their hands are dirty.

Politics is the dirtiest legal profession their is. Clark was not playing the part of whistleblower he nothing more than a political opportunist, his actions are bound to revive the distrust and suspicion that descended on council in the wake of Councillor Dave Mitchell's code of conduct troubles.

To be squeaky clean and above suspicion, Clark would have served his own and the public interest better if he had openly put the tape before council or the city's legal department rather than indulging in this backroom crap.

Video of Eisenberger's response,

Hamilton Council's latest proposal makes me 'gag'

The good: The draft bylaw to establish an city council integrity commissioner will go out for public consultation. It’s expected to be finalized in June. Councillors today allocated $50,000 in the 2008 budget to cover the potential costs of the commissioner for the last six months of the year.

The very bad: Controversial amendments were added to the bylaw last week at the Accountability and Transparency sub-committee, including charging a $100 fee to make a complaint and automatically cancelling investigation if the complainant speaks to the media.

The tragic comedy that is city hall continues it's sickening run at King and James. This weeks 'farce' includes a proposal that would render a complaint to the city's integrity commissioner null and void if the person complaining about a councillor goes public before the investigation is complete.

In other words, if you talk to the media, an investigation would be automatically be scrapped, regardless of how serious the allegation is. What draconian piece of shite is this? When did democracy cease in Hamilton?

That amendment to the draft bylaw was approved last week by the integrity and transparency subcommittee, which is made up of councillors and citizens. Council has transformed a piece of legislation intended to ensure that councillors live up to their ethical obligations into both a blatant attempt to gag free speech and a ruse to shield themselves from being accountable.

And, as citizen committee member Joanna Chapman, who voted against the proposal, rightly notes, "Anything that stands in the way of having a complaint properly investigated ... is a huge mistake."

The council members hiding behind the curtains pulling the strings are no mystery. Their the same ones, time and time again, who wish to waste time and money in order to save their old tired butts.

There's nothing nefarious behind the proposal. It's simply a misguided attempt to discourage "frivolous and vexatious" complaints.

Councillor Terry Whitehead, a member of the committee, argues imposing confidentiality on members of the public will help protect councillors from "bad-faith complaints" intended to politically embarrass them.

"The majority of the committee felt if someone was genuine in their complaint and had no agenda and they respected the independent process of the integrity commissioner then they would allow the commissioner to do the work before going public," Whitehead explains.

Councillor Brian McHattie, another committee member who supports the muzzle, notes the restriction is an extension of the same confidentiality rule that would apply to the integrity officer, if and when one is hired.

"I'm hearing very clearly from my fellow councillors unless they have those kind of protections in place then they won't support the commissioner bylaw," McHattie says.

Nice try, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Like Shakespeare's two courtiers in Hamlet the two councillors bumbled this one. The proposed restriction is not only out of step with an open and free society, it flies in the face of the rules governing investigations by the provincial integrity and environmental watchdogs.

Councillor Brad Clark points out that rather than protecting councillors from trivial and trumped up allegations, the gag would make them more vulnerable. For example, if a complainant goes public with an allegation and the investigation is dropped as a result, a councillor will have no way of clearing his or her name. The shadow of suspicion would linger forever.

Councillors should, within reason, be sheltered from unscrupulous special interest groups and political rivals looking to get at them, but they already have legal and moral ways of doing that. Imposing a muzzle on the public at the expense of what may be a legitimate allegation and serious investigation is way out of bounds for members a democratic political arena to conduct themselves.

Asinine comment shows Councillor Terry Whitehead's true character

as·i·nine [as-uh-nahyn]–adjective 1.foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid.

"I will not apologize"

It is surprising that supposedly intelligent people can make such asinine statement. Councillor Terry Whitehead drew gasps around Hamilton this week when he accused Joanna Chapman of not being objective in her role as a member of the integrity and transparency subcommittee. Chapman was not present in the gallery at the time.

The heated exchange started when Brad Clark objected to comments Whitehead made Wednesday morning. Clark said it’s highly inappropriate to criticize citizen volunteers who are giving up their time to help the city develop an integrity commissioner proposal. Whitehead shot back, naming Chapman as the person he doesn’t think is objective. Councillor Bob Bratina asked Whitehead to apologize. He refused, arguing he has a right to an opinion. Eisenberger again stopped Whitehead, explaining he was out of order. Chapman, who pursued charges against former mayor Larry Di Ianni for violating election was once again cheap shotted by a public official because they don't like the idea of a private citizen taking charge and voicing their given right to an intelligent opinion.

Whitehead and his supporters have been accused of trying to derail the integrity commissioner proposal. He denies the allegations, arguing he’s only trying to fight for the best model for taxpayers. The only thing he's fighting for is the continuance of "cronyism" at city hall. A regime that Mr. Whitehead vainly defends against crusaders like Joanna Chapman who only wish to hold the Mayor to his word and bring transparency back to this city.

You are errornous Mr. Whitehead when you claim this was not your election promise. You represent your constituents and it is your job to bring their wishes to the council floor. The people of Hamilton spoke loud and clear in the last election, they want transparency. Your petty wishes do not circumvent the wishes of the masses, sir. It is your duty to provide those, who's tax dollars provide you with a rather healthy living, their just desserts.

The proper resolution to this matter would be for Councillor Whitehead to be a man and offer an apology to Joanna Chapman.

Later,
Kenaz