Back On The Radar

This week in The Incline:

• The field is set

• The issues

  • Doug Ford

  • The infrastructure deficit

  • Economic instability

  • Affordability

  • Housing and homelessness

  • Transit and transportation

  • Environmental concerns

  • Data centres and technology

  • Perceptions of crime

  • Hate and extremism

  • Community building

  • The purpose of the office

The field is set

Back on August 24, with little fanfare, Hamilton’s City Clerk, in conjunction with the City’s Elections Department, officially certified the candidates nominated to stand in Hamilton’s 136th municipal election since our fair home’s incorporation in 1846. Or, if you’re particular about these things, the 8th election since amalgamation.

On or before October 26, 2026, we eligible electors will have the opportunity to pick between 13 mayoral candidates, 76 council candidates, and 48 school trustee candidates. Well…between 2 and 11 council candidates, depending on your ward. And some trustees have already been acclaimed…but you get my point.

Democracy has the potential to happen!

Whether or not Hamiltonians will flock to the polls remains to be seen, but we aren’t off to a great start, engagement-wise. Energy is down across the city, the anger in the city is directionless, and some of the more exciting things that could have galvanized the electorate failed to materialize.

And, if the dismal Hamilton East-Stoney Creek by-election has shown us anything, it’s that Hamiltonians aren’t super enthusiastic about this whole “democracy” thing.

Around 29% of eligible voters bothered to cast a ballot in the September 3 by-election, allowing Doug Ford’s hand-picked man, Jeff Beattie, to sneak into office, even after the parade of scandals that seemed to, for one brief, beautiful, glorious moment, signal the end to the grand provincial nightmare that has been the Era of Ford. Even after polls showed former Hamilton Mountain MPP Monique Taylor was the favourite to win and after Liberal candidate Heino Doessing claimed that the American crypto betting parlour Polymarket favoured him in the race, they couldn’t prevail over the most compelling option in the race: staying home.

Beattie will now head to Queen’s Park to be a reliable vote in favour of Doug Ford’s agenda after being selected by just 11.4% of the eligible electors in the riding of Hamilton East-Stoney Creek.

What a deeply, deeply broken system we have.

On the municipal scene, there is no indication that turnout will be much higher than what we saw in Hamilton East-Stoney Creek.

The drama that could have encouraged people to get out and vote simply hasn’t been there. Despite years of rumours and speculation, some of the big name candidates and recognizable players didn’t step up. Chad Collins’s mayoral ambitions were scuttled thanks to a crowded field and no room to carve out a niche. Other possible mayoral contenders like Ward 14 Councillor Mike Spadafora and the aforementioned Monique Taylor opted to run for other seats (Spadafora for re-election and Taylor in the provincial by-election).

Potential council candidates, like the provocative young Tory operative Hayden Lawrence, did not register to run in Ward 4 as expected. Some of the early candidates, like a Ward 2 candidate infamous for running the now-banned social media account “Intervention Intersection” dropped out after failing to answer basic questions from the media about his “possibly” having approximately 36 criminal convictions for things like “harassment, uttering threats, assault with a weapon and theft of communications.”¹ Said candidate withdrew from the race and returned to social media (on a new account), where he has denied being the same person, accused the Spec reporter on the story of “working for the left”, threatened a lawsuit for the paper’s reporting, and referred to the Spec as the “Hamilton Speculator”, which it should be noted was also the name of the McMaster Silhouette’s parody section.

When I was writing for the Sil (and infrequently contributing to the Speculator), we tried to make current events funny for the aforementioned section. We may have even taken a crack at this sad story, but I doubt even the greatest satirist in the world could spin this pitiful saga into something amusing.

On the city’s beleaguered school boards, there wasn’t a last-minute push by social conservatives to flood trustee races as some had worried might happen. While we don’t have a roving band of PPC/New Blue culture warriors thirsting for battle against the paper dragons that haunt their dreams, there are still some notable candidates on the right. More on those later, maybe.

In fact, Hamilton’s school boards might feature some of this year’s most interesting races. On the public side, 5 of the board’s 11 incumbents are not running again (or, in the case of Dawn Danko, seeking a seat on council - the only trustee to attempt the jump this time around). While there were two acclamations, many of the races - specifically the ones in Wards 1, 3, 7, and 8 & 14 - will be ones to watch given the diversity of candidates in each of those contests. It’ll be very important for the candidates in those races to get out there, introduce themselves to a typically disengaged electorate, and make a case as to why they should represent public electors in each of those wards.

Catholic electors, on the other hand, will only be able to cast ballots for five trustees. The trustees representing Catholic school supporters in the entire lower city, Waterdown, and Stoney Creek mountain have been automatically elected by acclamation.

Hamilton’s Francophones will be entirely left out of the excitement, as both public and Catholic trustees in those boards won without opponents. That said, given the expansion of French-language schools in the area, these trustees will have a big job ahead of them in the next term of office.

But, generally, there weren’t a lot of surprises this nomination period. Former councillors Jason Farr and Terry Whitehead are mounting comeback bids as expected, the conservative block is organized and fielding a host of candidates who will help a potential mayor Rob Cooper implement Doug Ford’s agenda at the local level, and all but three incumbent councillors want their jobs back (one got promoted, one wants to be promoted, and one is doing the sensible thing and escaping with their sanity while they still can). All expected, really.

Even the biggest surprises have been pretty tame. Mayor Horwath’s decision to seek a second term was something she had announced, even if some overeager local newsletter writers thought she wasn’t going to run. The Hamilton East-Stoney Creek provincial by-election taking Ward 10 Councillor Jeff Beattie out of the municipal race flipped that contest a little, but only 11 candidates signed up to replace him - far fewer than the 26 candidates who contested the Ward 8 by-election last year. That number - 11 - is quite common for open seats in Hamilton; last time around, 11 candidates ran in Wards 4 and 5, and Ward 12’s open seat was one shy, coming in at 10 candidates.

Overall, there’s a general meh attitude on the part of the electorate. A distinct and palpable apathy with under two months to go. Things might pick up, but that depends on how each candidate addresses the issues facing our community.

The issues

Back in March (or 15,000 years ago), I started a “series” called “On The Radar” which sought to highlight one issue per edition that I thought would impact the 2026 election.

The first edition was about the imagined “left-wing spectre” in the city about which former politicians and outsized local personalities like Jason Farr and Sam Merulla were issuing warnings. The language they used was reminiscent of the rhetoric used on Fox News and coming from the current American administration that dehumanized, demonized, and delegitimized the political left.

It’s all old stuff. Newt Gingrich synthesized these ideas in his great “saying the quiet part out loud” essay from 1990 called “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control”. It encouraged Republican politicians to use words like “bizarre”, “failure”, “incompetent”, “radical”, “self-serving”, “sick”, and “traitors” to define anyone to their left. You know, the stuff that has basically set the stage for the absolute dumpster fire of politics today.

I saw their social media back-and-forth about the “hard left” coming to take down the city as an issue that needed to be addressed. My intention was to keep going with that series, but then I took a break from newslettering, “rebooted” things with a different focus, etc. etc. etc. I know I’ve used this Rabbie Burns line before but “the best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang aft agley!” I like to think my firth-bound Fifer ancestors would be pleased by such instances of Scots-signaling.

Anyway, that series didn’t pan out, but now with just a few weeks until we head to the polls, I do think it is important to highlight the 12 issues I see as some of the biggest in our community. There’s some order to them, but each are important in their own right and are connected to one another in sometimes unforeseen ways.

Here, then, are the 12 issues that should be addressed by candidates in the 2026 election and will inevitably be top-of-mind for the next council and the next school boards from 2026 to 2030. They are:

• Doug Ford

• The infrastructure deficit

• Economic instability

• Affordability

• Housing and homelessness

• Transit and transportation

• Environmental concerns

• Data centres and technology

• Perceptions of crime

• Hate and extremism

• Community building

• The purpose of the office

Doug Ford

Since 2018, Ontario’s Premier has been the proverbial elephant in every council chamber across the province. The unwritten contract between municipalities and the province, developed over decades of careful negotiation, was undone in a matter of minutes when, just weeks after his government took office, Ford announced he was going to cut the size of Toronto’s city council and cancel the planned election of regional chairs across the province simply because he could.

Over the past eight years, the province has acted like a cold, vengeful parent, subjecting municipalities to wild experiments, arbitrary decisions, and poorly thought-out legislation, operating as though municipalities are incapacitated family members incapable of making their own decisions. Doug Ford’s government took away the right of municipalities to decide their own electoral systems and denied local voters any chance at real electoral reform, meddled in local urban planning decisions around things as simple as bike lanes (which the Court of Appeal recently said he is well within his rights to do), and fundamentally restructured local government by introducing “strong mayor powers” despite overwhelming opposition from residents and civic leaders.

The provincial government’s transportation objectives exist seemingly in spite of municipalities, pushing through unpopular projects like the Highway 413 even as local councils oppose the unnecessary highway. Their perspectives on governance ignore local autonomy and regional decision making, as Conservation Authorities (important specialized boards that are joint municipal/provincial responsibilities) are arbitrarily amalgamated and local school trustees are sidelined by appointed “supervisors” for vaguely-defined problems like “infighting” and “inefficiency”, without providing any evidence backing up their claims. Though “evidence” has never really been the Premier’s strong suit - a fact made particularly evident last year when he banned municipal speed enforcement cameras despite the mountains of evidence in support of their effectiveness.

Like it or not, every member of council and every school trustee will be sharing their office with Ontario’s micromanaging Premier. The decisions they make may be quickly undone by the province, things they don’t want may be forced on them from above, and the entire structure of their organization can be changed on a whim at any point during their term of office.

Every municipal leader will have to decide how to address this issue. They can take the “full opposition” approach and come out swinging against the province. They can take the “careful manager” approach and seek to mitigate the worst impacts of provincial impositions. Or they can take the “local cheerleader” approach, hoping that, by backing the easily flattered Premier, their jurisdiction may receive favourable treatment.

Or, more realistically, they’ll pick some combination of all of those - the “Olivia Chow approach”, if you will. Toronto’s endlessly savvy mayor has scored major wins by blending equal parts flattery and incredible political maneuvering with a dash of righteous progressive opposition (not unlike how NYC’s Zohran Mamdani is approaching the current American administration). Where other leaders might throw up their hands in defeat, Chow looks for opportunities to make deals and keep her constituents safe.

Councillors and trustees will have to determine how to deal with the province while recognizing that, constitutionally-speaking, they are the…uhh…submissive partner in the relationship. Municipalities and boards exist at the province’s pleasure, meaning there is only so far a local leader can push.

But ask your local candidates how they plan to deal with provincial overreach and a Premier who rarely shows local voters and their institutions the respect they deserve.

The infrastructure deficit

Last year, council heard a presentation from one of the program analysists in the city’s corporate asset management division. During that presentation, it was announced that Hamilton’s infrastructure deficit is somewhere between $3.2 billion and $7.4 billion. That means it will cost somewhere between those numbers (the generally accepted one is $5.2 billion) to repair and replace Hamilton’s existing infrastructure over the next 10 years. We’re talking roads, parks, pipes, housing…all municipal assets. So if every Hamiltonian of all ages could chip in around $9,200, we’d be able to clear that in no time!

More potholes on your street than houses? Thank the infrastructure deficit. Pipes bursting in winter? Infrastructure deficit. Arena falling apart, park repairs taking forever, CityHousing wait list growing longer and longer and longer? In 👏 fra 👏 struc 👏 ture 👏 def 👏 i 👏 cit 👏.

That deficit exists for a few reasons.

It’s thanks, in part, to previous councils not raising the tax revenue needed fix what needed to be fixed. Past councils cared more about their re-election bids than planning for the future, which has put us in this bind. From 2010 to 2022, tax increases did not exceed 3%. Actually, during the 2010-2014 term of office, they didn’t exceed 1.5%. The old tax rate pushed us to this situation, pushing the bill off into the future. Well, surprise surprise, the future has arrived, and it wants its money, thank you very much.

It’s thanks, in part, to the province not ensuring the municipality has the money to perform all the tasks it has been assigned by the province itself. Provincial downloading means that local governments now provide more services than ever before with fewer resources than ever before. The feds aren’t blameless in this either; the federal disinvestment from housing eventually meant that municipalities were doing alone what they used to do with two much larger and more financially-stable partners. *stares off into the distance, oddly intrigued by his own phrasing* Whoops, sorry. Back to the point.

It’s thanks, in part, to decades of a municipal focus on the fast money that came from low-density, suburban-style development that sees municipal taxpayers subsidize developers who walk away with the profit and none of the liability. The housing these developers built is now unattainable for most Hamiltonians, but we’re still picking up the bill for providing services across 360 square kilometres of urban space.

It’s thanks, in part, to the collapse of the global supply chain during the Pandemic and the resulting period of inflation, the global economic uncertainty thanks to erratic American and Russian military policy, and the centralization of responsibilities for providing infrastructure in a few small companies driven by profit rather than civic duty - each of which has helped raise the cost of goods and services to an obscene level.

But, put bluntly, stuff still needs to get fixed. We can’t go back in time and tell previous councils to do better, ensure Mike Harris never gets into office, tell urban planners from the 1960’s that they’ll destroy this city with their car obsession, and tell medical officials in Wuhan to get a handle on the “mysterious pneumonia” they observed in December of 2019.

What we can do is plan better for the future. Hamilton needs to get a handle on sprawl, demand a better deal from both the province and federal government, prioritize infrastructure investments that are lasting, cost-effective, and can generate investment.

Candidates for local office need to have plans to address this. And, if part of their platform includes lowering or freezing taxes, ask how they’ll address the infrastructure deficit. Ask them how it would make sense to, for example, voluntarily take lower pay at work when your roof needs to be fixed, your porch is collapsing, and coyotes have basically taken control of your backyard due to a broken fence.

Economic instability

When the British newspaper The Guardian was reporting on the impact of the renewed trade war on Canada, one of the images they used was a Shutterstock photo of coils of steel waiting in a storage lot at Dofasco. Hamilton may become the posterchild for the impacts of economic instability, given how the city’s employment picture looks.

The single largest employment category in Hamilton is “sales and service”, with just over ¼ of employed Hamiltonians working in that field. The next largest is “trades, transportation, and equipment operation” at 17%, followed by “business and finance” at 16%, and “education, law, and social, community, and government services” at 12%. So much for the right-wing talking point about how the only growth sector in the city is the “poverty industry”.

The unnecessary trade war will impact countless Hamiltonians. Uncertainty means that large manufacturers will see falling profits and, in an effort to shore up their bottom line, may resort to plant closures and layoffs. The rising cost of goods will mean fewer people able to afford them and, thus, less need for folks working in sales and service. If there are fewer people working, it will be harder for people to buy new homes or renovate the ones they own, impacting the other cluster of people who work in the trades. An economic downturn will hit the white collar workers in business and finance, and we may see layoffs there too. Given the return to “classical liberal” economics on the part of increasingly right-wing governments in Canada, there won’t be a state-led effort to shore up the economy through expanding universities, colleges, and other public entities that could stimulate spending and keep people employed. Indeed, it seems more likely that hiring freezes and civil service downsizing will continue as tax-obsessed politicians fixate on short-term spending over long-term economic stability.

Many candidates will proclaim their commitment to “creating jobs”. Ask them how they plan on doing that. Will they focus on attracting large corporations? How far might they be willing to go to keep those corporations happy? What about the rights of workers to organize? Is the emphasis going to be on creating stable, unionized jobs? Will they prioritize local business? How do they see the municipality helping stimulate the economy in the event of a downturn? Will there be an emphasis on keeping property taxes low, or will the municipality invest in the city to keep people employed?

Affordability

When I ran for Wards 1 & 2 school board trustee in 2014, one of the only candidate forums I was asked to participate in was held at the downtown YWCA. It was put on by some of the downtown neighbourhood associations and gave everyone up and down the ballot a chance to speak directly to voters. The trustee statements were first and, despite being a Ward 1 resident, I stuck around to hear the Ward 2 council candidates do their debate.

Sometimes, candidates throw out humourous lines to keep the audience engaged. Self-deprecating humour especially can help break down the barriers between political figures and the public. But the biggest laugh of the night didn’t come from a planned quip. No, the crowd laughed the hardest when candidate John Vail - a recognizable Conservative activist in the lower city - said that high property taxes were driving people into poverty. Given that Ward 2 is majority renter and has a high concentration of people living in actual poverty, the line was laughably tone-deaf and wildly off base.

And, yet, that sentiment persists. Campaigns have already begun talking about the need to reduce property taxes to help with affordability. Now, after the ill-timed release of the city’s budget forecast with its projection of an 8.2 percent tax increase in 2027, that chatter will only grow louder.

Despite this focus, there’s little recognition of the idea that taxes help pay for services that people would otherwise need to pay for by themselves. There’s no discussion about the idea that, if each person as an individual needed to seek these services out from the private market, the costs would be considerably higher and the service decidedly unequal. The political right has absolutely defined the conversation on this, so we’re all expected to just follow their lead, whether it’s good for us or not.

None of that means concerns about affordability are going away. People are struggling to pay rent, make mortgage payments, afford groceries, fill up their cars with gas, make bill payments, etc. etc. etc. If the cost of city services also increases at the same time, people will be receptive to any argument about finding savings.

Many candidates will be running around Hamilton, demanding a “back to basics” approach. That’s, frankly, extremely revealing of their lack of experience. The municipality isn’t struggling to provide the basics like working pipes, paved roads, and maintained parks because they’re dabbling in “wild social experiments” as the political right claims. They’re struggling because of the aforementioned infrastructure deficit.

But regular people are struggling too. So balancing the need to provide services with a careful recognition that people are being squeezed by employers who aren’t paying people enough to survive, large corporations that seek a healthier bottom line for shareholders, and everyone else trying to make a quick buck at the expense of everyone else will be key.

So ask your local candidates how they plan to continue to provide the services we expect while navigating the rising cost of living for everyday people.

Housing and homelessness

Ahh, the eternal problem. The cost of housing has increased beyond what almost every Hamiltonian can reasonably afford and all we’ve gotten in the form of solutions have been a dose of xenophobia in the form of a restriction on the number of international students and a pledge by the provincial government to build as many boxes made of ticky tacky as they can on as much farmland as we have available. It’s a good time. We’re all doing great. Fun fun fun fun fun.

And, on the homelessness front, we’re still in rough shape. Mayoral candidate Rob Cooper has already been taken to task by the Spec for his misleading statement that homelessness has “quadrupled” in four years (it wasn’t a 300% increase as he claimed, but is closer to a 31% increase - yet, he put it out there and, in this age of alternative facts, it’ll become the reality for the legion of Facebook commenters for whom Cooper is, apparently, about to become Hamilton’s Trumpian saviour). But even if Cooper is trying to fearmonger and saddle Horwath with the blame for social disorder that preoccupy many in the city, it doesn’t change the fact that homelessness has increased and there hasn’t been much headway on reducing chronic homelessness.

The city cannot act alone in this respect. Housing and homelessness have been handed to municipalities without the tools necessary to actually address them. It’s all part of the right-wing strategy of undermining public services to justify their privatization in the future.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t options. Again, civic leaders can put pressure on the province and federal government to come to the table. They can leverage public lands and work collaboratively with non-profit housing providers to get housing built. They can encourage the growth and development of housing co-ops, co-housing, and other forms of living that take people more out of the market and give them power over their own homes.

Ask your local candidates how they plan to address this issue, but don’t assume they can fix everything all on their own. Then again, if they’ve proposed a registry of “homeless supporters” or voted against affordable housing projects on parking lots or have made no real suggestions on how to address this issue, maybe ask them about that too…

Transit and transportation

Hamilton has a car problem.

Driving in this city is an absolute nightmare. Cycling is an extreme sport. Simply standing at a bus shelter or crossing at an intersection carries with it an unnecessarily high risk of injury.

A combination of road design, the sheer number of cars, and the driving culture in this city - a blend of anger, aggressive behaviour, and obliviousness - has turned every street into a warzone. Residents actively avoid certain intersections or stretches of road out of fear for their safety, no matter what method of transportation they choose.

Last year, there were 916 non-fatal injuries on Hamilton’s city streets - 2.5 a day. Eleven people were killed in collisions in 2025. On August 22 - one day after the close of nominations - another cyclist was killed in Hamilton, this time on Upper Centennial Parkway

While instances of people being harmed or killed on city streets are dropping, the numbers remain upsettingly high.

All too many candidates are pushing the belief that the only way to deal with congestion is to expand roadways and make it easier for people to drive. That’s not only illogical, but reckless. The only way to make driving better from a municipal perspective is to do everything we can to get more cars off the road.

That means planning in such a way that allows people a chance to use active transportation for simple, everyday tasks. It shouldn’t be necessary to drive the kids to school, drive to a grocery store, drive to a hair appointment, drive to get dog food, drive to a restaurant for dinner, drive to go see friends, drive drive drive drive drive. It shouldn’t just be possible, but preferable, to walk to a corner grocery store, walk a few blocks to a cafe, or walk to a local gym. The key here is better planning; a combination of easing outdated restrictions on development and mandating certain things in communities. Combined with ambitious traffic engineering, a firm commitment to active transportation, and a recognition that the entire city deserves to live within walking distance of amenities, and we can help reduce the traffic hell that we live in today.

But we also need to invest in rapid, reliable, affordable public transit. Yes, transit should be free, but it should first prove that it is worthy of being a truly public amenity. Why would anyone be okay with fully subsidizing a transit system where the busses barely run at all, let alone on time? With any luck, the new HSR Next plan offers some system stability and puts us on track to a more connected future.

And then, of course, we have the zombie in our midst. The great undead mass that skulks in the background, gobbling up buildings and drawing the ire of everyone’s angriest uncle. The signs announcing its arrival taunt us and the scars it has already dragged across the landscape remind us that, even if it never comes, it will still always be with us. This zombie is, of course, the mythical, brain eating, dark magic-summoned Hamilton LRT.

Almost all enthusiasm for the LRT project is gone. Its most staunch defenders are now limited to people for whom concept of “economic development” is titillating. Indeed, the prevailing sentiments around the project in town are either “100% against” or “100% ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”.

Years of delays dampened the spirits of those moderately interested in LRT and the council decision in April of 2024 to endorse private operation of the project (instead of having it run by the HSR) turned many remaining “progressive supporters” to “progressive apathetics”.

Case in point: I was once ultra supportive of the project, helping to launch a campaign through the McMaster Student Union trying to get Mac students on board with the LRT. But the constant delays, lack of any meaningful movement, and horror stories emanating from similar projects has me worried. I’m worried that the slow death (and even slower resurrection) of this project has killed any hope of meaningful rapid transit in Hamilton and consigned us to lower-tier city status for a generation. I’m not an opponent of the project by any stretch of the imagination. More just…I don’t know…is there a German word for a combined feeling of shame, sadness, anger, frustration, and disappointment? Schamtraurigkeitwutfrustrationenttäuschung or something?

So council candidates will need to explain how they plan to support safe streets, reliable transit, and better, human-focused planning. They’ll need to explain how they can manage the impacts of LRT construction on a skittish business population and they’ll need to figure out how to keep Hamiltonians moving - through endless construction projects, as the city sprawls, and into the future.

Environmental concerns

This has been a very, very bad year for our local environment. Much of the lower city and east mountain have been dealing with “black soot” events, McMaster’s “What’s The Grime” study found toxic chemicals consistent with coal combustion in entirely different soot collected in the east end, the diesel fumes from CN’s Stuart Street yard have been getting worse and worse, and Hamilton recorded its worst air quality day in over a decade after wildfire smoke settled over the city in July, turning the sky an apocalyptic yellow.

Anecdotally, anyone near the waterfront this summer would have regularly seen thick, black coal smoke rising up from the stacks at Stelco and Dofasco, drifting lazily over the city on still, warm days. The “scrubbers” in place to mitigate some of the worst impacts of that smoke do not seem to be working well, if at all. And an entirely indifferent provincial government means that these giant multinationals (Stelco is owned by a Cleveland-based company, while Dofasco is owned by the Luxembourgish ArcelorMittal) can do what they want, when they want, with impunity.

Environmental concerns often take a back seat to economic ones. And in a moment when economic uncertainty is top-of-mind, many leaders will inevitably fall back on the tried-and-true methods that prioritize profit over planet. But this is a short-sighted approach, and one that conveniently ignores the transformative potential of a green shift while deferring to the large corporations who have little short-term incentive to change their existing practices.

The city’s conservative block has had the Climate Change Initiatives office at City Hall in their crosshairs for years. They’ve screamed about the city buying electric cars and planting things in medians and building paths and bike lanes. They’ll almost certainly come for those things in the next term of office if they can expand their caucus and have a friendly mayor to back them up.

So ask council candidates if they want to invest in clean technology now to help alleviate problems in the future. Ask them if they see green technology and investments to reduce our impact on the climate as worthwhile. And ask what they plan to do if they don’t want to invest in that. Do they see the private market as stepping up? Or do they want other levels of government to take the lead?

And, ultimately, the question they need to answer for is how much are they willing to sacrifice for economic growth? The health of residents of whole sections of the city? The long term viability of our community? How big of a bill are they willing to hand the future?

Data centres and technology

The outcry over council rejecting the proposed interim control by-law (ICBL) on data centres showed that there is a small, but extremely vocal group in the community for whom this is a major concern.

Sidenote: though maybe it should be more of a concern, considering (as noted in the Garbage Day newsletter) one of the researchers behind Anthropic (the company that runs Claude) resigned this week because, in part, “The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.” FUN!

Polling from across the country this summer indicates many are worried about the impact of AI on their lives and communities. A Leger poll from July showed that 81 percent of respondents had concerns about the energy use of data centres and 79 percent worried about the environmental impacts of the projects. That said, respondents were split on whether they would support data centres in their provinces; 44 percent were supportive and 42 percent were opposed. An Angus Reid poll drills down a little more, finding that 68 percent of respondents were opposed to AI data centres near their homes. Respondents in Ontario were even more against them, with 71 percent saying they would oppose a “large AI data centre within a few blocks” of where they live. A Nanos poll commissioned by the Globe and Mail a few weeks back showed that just under 22 percent of Ontarians believe AI data centres would be a net negative for their community, opposed to just over 16 percent saying they would be a positive (interestingly, the strongest opposition comes from women and respondents aged 18 to 34). Across the United States, backlash to the projects is growing so intense that even Republican governors are switching their tune; Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently said AI data centre companies “dug their own grave” and deserve the public opposition they get.

These are polarizing projects. And, as I have noted before, Hamilton’s vote on the data centre ICBL was more symbolic than anything; it would have signaled that council understood the concerns of the public and wanted to slow development so that we could get out ducks in a row for the future.

This issue has inspired some council candidates to put their names forward. One has even registered with an email address that reads, in part, “hamiltonagainstai”. But, just as I noted in the Doug Ford section, the province has incredible power here. A municipal government can pass something against AI and the province can simply override it with its own legislation. That isn’t to say council shouldn’t try to do something, just that candidates running because of the AI issue need to temper their expectations if they find themselves sworn into office on November 15.

And that isn’t even counting the federal government, which just released new data centre guidelines. This is a complicated new file and everyone has a role to play. But some players are more powerful than others here.

Managing technology isn’t in the purview of municipalities. Land use planning, utilities provision, local employment policies and, to a certain extent, energy management, are (which is where the most recent discussion about using Hamilton Community Enterprises - Hamilton’s municipal utility - to slow down AI data centres). Balancing the very real concerns about AI and the driving forces behind it - tech bros who are becoming increasingly right-wing and skeptical about democracy (and now eager to destroy humanity, apparently), corporate entities eager to maximize profits, etc. - means using the tools we have available to ensure the best possible outcome for residents.

Yes, ask local council candidates about AI and their perspective on the ICBL, but also jot down similar questions to ask your MPP and MP. Instead, ask council candidates about land use management and how AI fits into economic development goals and how municipalities - as the largest shareholders of public utilities - will use their power to manage things like power use when it comes to AI.

Perceptions of crime

This one. This one annoys me beyond comprehension. This one…

It is illogical. It is irrational. It represents a disconnect between reality and emotion that just pisses me off. I know, I know, I’m supposed to be calm and explain things clearly and all that, but I just don’t understand this one. I’m so damn tired of writing about it.

Hamiltonians believe that crime is increasing by leaps and bounds. But it isn’t.

In 2024, the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) charged 2,037 individuals with 7,209 criminal code violations ranging from first degree murder to shoplifting. In 2025, the HPS charged 1,994 individuals with 7,929 criminal code violations.

Yeah, the number of charges went up, but the people involved went down and the key indicators were down too. Murder was down. Property crimes were down. Car thefts were down. The increase was driven by drug charges, charges related to sexual assaults and harm against children, and hate. Still upsetting stuff, but it’s important to have context here.

But still, candidates are parading around the city promising to “get tough on crime”.

Let’s set aside the fact that an individual councillor cannot direct the HPS to do anything. Council itself can’t direct the HPS to do anything. Not even the Hamilton Police Services Board can force the HPS to do anything. The Criminal Code cannot be changed by municipalities. Council and the mayor cannot make drugs more illegal than they already are. Unless council has been sitting on precog technology for a few decades and, only through the election of a conservative super majority will they be released and forced to see future crimes, there isn’t much council can do.

So if we set all that aside, we’re down to the bare bones of the matter: how will any person elected to council for the 2026-2030 term of office “reduce” crime? How will any member of council or any mayor “make our streets safer” through their actions? How will they stop violent crime? How will they get guns off the street or stop people from using drugs or prevent predatory adults from harming children?

Beyond that, the next council will absolutely need to deal with how Hamiltonians perceive crime. There’s a growing disconnect in our society that’s keeping people away from their neighbours, isolated from difference, and walled off from their community.

The second someone steps downtown and sees a person experiencing a mental health crisis - a crisis caused and ignored by the provincial government which has the constitutional responsibility to address healthcare - they immediately associate that interaction with crime. It isn’t a crime to be mentally ill. It isn’t a crime to act strangely. It isn’t a crime to exist in an urban space without spending money or following social norms or not have a home. But the perception still remains.

Addressing that will take a massive effort, and one that will require a fundamental shift in our society. City council cannot address that on their own. But through better urban planning, more funding for events that bring people together, a reorientation of our transportation patterns away from the private automobile, and a renewed focus on community building, we can do our part to remind people that discomfort ≠ crime.

Hate and extremism

One of the few categories of crime that is increasing by leaps and bounds is hate. The HPS hate crime report that was released about a month after I published “The Hate At Home” indicated that hate crimes and incidents were up 12% to 332.

Reporters from across Canada have documented the growth of white nationalist, racist, homophobic, neo-Nazi, and other extremist groups that have, for some reason, found fertile ground here. On August 29, Hamiltonians gathered in the forecourt of City Hall to demonstrate against a white nationalist conference that was supposed to take place in our city. None of this is going away, even if the odd ducks behind that conference decided to take their business to Burlington.

It isn’t just the flashy weirdos with tacky nationalist branding; local Facebook groups are filled with anti-trans and homophobic comments, often directed at political candidates with whom the poster disagrees. The pure bile that was posted in response to my summer Spec piece on why we still need Pride month is an excellent example of the raw hate that permeates through so much of our community. As is the weapons-grade misogyny directed towards Mayor Horwath or the middle school-level bullying that is the purposeful homophobic misspelling of Cameron Kroetsch’s name.

So Hamilton is a hotbed of hate and extremism. But many of the things that can be employed to address perceptions of crime - better planning, community building, bringing people together - can help address hate, but so can providing people with economic opportunities and a sense of purpose.

At the same time, some very wealthy people are funneling money into extremist groups with abandon. Some want to hasten the downfall of society so they can swoop in and reestablish feudalism (not a joke - some want to create a new feudalist society with them at the top and you at the bottom) while others merely want to increase their wealth and power, which is easier when you pit people against one another. So these groups have money. And they have organizing capacity.

So addressing the impact of groups like this is beyond anything a city council or, indeed, any level of government can do alone. It will require us to challenge the power of the billionaires, get active in our communities, and build community on our own to truly eliminate this threat.

Community building

Speaking of community building…

One of the most important things a city council can do is be a facilitator. They can approve urban designs that encourage human-scaled spaces, they can offer grants for community groups seeking to bring people together, they can ensure that the stage is set, the pieces are all there, and then they can step back. Community isn’t something that can be forced, but municipalities can make space to better facilitate connection.

And we desperately need that right now. Community is fraying with intensity in this city. Look to any neighbourhood Facebook group to see just how profoundly years of pandemic isolation fried the brains of all too many. There are corners of the local internet where users believe the end is nigh and the city is all but a post-apocalyptic hellscape, rife with disorder, destruction, and chaos. These online spaces are poor substitutes for real connection and often work to drive people further apart instead of bringing them together.

So, so many people in our city have a deep craving to engage in in-person social events. They want to bowl and watch movies and participate in book clubs and play pickleball and go running and have barbeques and be part of something meaningful.

A city councillor can’t make community. But the actions taken by council can facilitate the natural growth of strong, resilient, vibrant communities. Diverse communities. Healthy communities. Communities that people want to stay in.

Focusing on building up the missing middle can bring the housing we need and bring people closer to the amenities and services they want. Encouraging mid-block and corner commercial can provide natural stopping-in places for communities. Prioritizing walkable communities and active transportation takes people out of the isolation of the personal automobile and brings them into contact with the vibrant diversity of urban life. Pocket parks and community centres, pedestrianized streets and community schools, legalized third spaces and decriminalized “cracking a beer in the park with your friends on a Saturday”.

So ask your local candidates how they plan to help facilitate community building. Their responses will undoubtedly be telling. In some instances, they may give away that they know surprisingly little about what councillors can do. In other instances, they may show you that they don’t understand the real power of the office.

The purpose of the office

On August 19, the Ontario Land Tribunal ruled that Hamilton’s 2025 rejection of an application to develop two large rural plots just outside the urban boundary was unacceptable and that the city needed to expand the urban boundary by 1,600 hectares (roughly the area of the lower city from the 403 east to Sanford Avenue). While the city then quickly rejected a proposed plan for the area, the OLT’s decision makes clear that the city itself has limited authority in making decisions about the land in its own jurisdiction.

I first got the notification about the decision while out on a run. I stopped, stared at my phone for a while, and said, out loud, “so local government really doesn’t matter then.” The geese around me had nothing to contribute, aside from their menacing glares.

Municipal government in Canada is bizarre and complicated. And I’m saying that despite having a PhD in the political geography of municipal institutions in Canada.

Municipalities exist at the pleasure of provincial governments. They do as they are told, have to fit within a narrow framework established without their input, and are expected to carry the responsibilities provinces no longer want to deal with. They truly are the workhorses of government in Canada. Despite this, there isn’t really any purpose to them anymore.

Want bike lanes? Province can just rip them out. Want housing? Need input from other levels of government. What about environmental protections? Same thing. How about stopping AI data centres? Maybe, but the province might just come out with new guidelines that override everything you do.

Municipal voters go to the ballot box and elect representatives, labouring under the assumption that said representatives would have even an iota of power. But their power is temporary, subject to approval, and not nearly as sweeping as people expect.

Same goes for school boards. Trustees have almost no power whatsoever. The entire office was almost wiped off the map a few months ago. And many would have responded with an enthusiastic meh. It is an office designed to provide ratepayers (a word I absolutely despise - you’re a human and a resident, not merely someone who is defined by how much money they contribute to something) with a voice in how public money is spent on public schools. But they do not get to set curricula, do not get to hire and fire teachers directly, and have no power over bargaining with teachers unions.

And that’s why I default to my long-standing position. That is, namely, that a member of a municipal council or board is two things: a legislator and an advocate.

They have a responsibility to legislate - to introduce motions, to debate motions, to hear reports, to accept or reject reports, to gather expert and community perspectives, and then to vote on said motions. That is one of their stated responsibilities as “directors” of the “corporation” of the City of Hamilton (words put in quotes because I find the idea of referring to a municipality as a “corporation” as ideologically off-putting). Same goes for trustees. They hear staff reports, introduce motions, etc. etc. etc.

But they also have a responsibility to advocate - to speak up for their constituents, to provide the resident point of view when staff offer opinions, to provide the perspective of Hamiltonians or school board supporters when dealing with elected officials from other municipalities and other levels of government. Some of the power of the office comes from the office itself. A regular citizen has a voice, but an elected official has both the status of the office and a mandate from the people who cast ballots in the election they won to speak from a certain position.

Different candidates will have different opinions on how to approach the office. You, yourself, might also have a different perspective on how an elected official should act once sworn in. So ask your local candidates how they see the office and what they think they can or should do once elected.

There are just 45 days until we go to the polls and elect the council and school boards for the 2026-2030 term. A lot can happen in six weeks. But these issues are some that should be addressed by candidates as we creep closer and closer to election day.

1  _{Mac Christie. “Hamilton council candidate withdraws amid allegations of criminal past” Hamilton Spectator, August 19, 2026 - Link (Paywalled).}