Place Your Bets

This week in The Incline:

• The bad gambler

• Civic incivility

• Inflating the issues

• Turnout blues

The bad gambler

I’m not very good at gambling.

One of my grandfather’s favourite activities was spending a few dollars at the Elements Casino at Flamboro Downs. It was something he and my grandmother would do before her illness made the trip out to Greensville impossible. While she had middling success, he almost never lost. He could walk in with $50 and leave with the same, if not more, almost every time.

After she passed, family members spent the next decade taking turns bringing him up there to indulge in the old pass time of playing the slots. He knew which machines were the best, which spots to sit in, which employees could bring the best luck just by being around. It was an inscrutable system, but it seemed to work. In with $50, out with $80. In with $50, out with $50 and a free meal. In with $50, out with $40, but, at one point, up to $200.

By the time the worst of the pandemic ended, his health had begun to decline. I had returned from the exotic environs of Montreal and had begun helping him with tasks around the modest East Mountain bungalow in which he had lived since 1968. One day, he less-than-subtly suggested we take a trip to the casino for something to do.

I didn’t think it was possible for a man in his 80’s to speedwalk faster than I (your walking speed is calculated before you can become a Card Carrying Gay™), but the way he darted across that parking lot was something to behold. He bounced between machines, pushing his walker with determination and focus, hunting for the best place to win it big. I, on the other hand, dawdled around aimlessly, trying to stretch the $20 I had decided would serve as my limit for as long as my overly energetic grandfather wanted to stay.

The machines made no sense. They were a dizzying array of early 2000’s graphics, animations announcing roll bonuses without purpose, and a near lethal dose of cultural stereotypes overlooked by the incredibly diverse crowd of patrons. The card tables were closed. The horses were unknown to me. The whole experience was simultaneously overwhelming and underwhelming. At the end, I walked out $50 poorer (unable to stick to my cap out of sheer boredom). My grandfather also lost that day. He had a great time, but, in the moment, I couldn’t help think I was somewhat of a bad luck charm. He’s been gone for some time now, so I tend to look back on those trips with fondness, despite my poor luck.

My poor gambling luck isn’t just at the casino.

The most I’ve ever pulled on the Lotto Max is $5. I’ve never won the 50/50 at the curling club. The only contest I ever won, I entered as a joke because someone challenged me to complete the skill-testing math question. Unserious about the whole thing, I put my sister’s name down as the entrant. Smash cut to me being forced to accompany her to a Tiger Cats game, tickets to which were the grand prize for said contest.

Not sure if that’s considered a “win” or not.

Based on my luck, I really try not to make predictions. Especially about elections.

I told a classmate running for student council in Grade 12 that their candidacy was a surefire thing. When they lost by a landslide, I got an angry, tearful lecture about not getting people’s hopes up.

During my time as a student journalist at the McMaster Silhouette, I secured an interview with Mayor Fred Eisenberger in the midst of his 2010 re-election bid. I was confident I was speaking with the current-and-future mayor. My colleague who nabbed an interview with Bob Bratina politely kept their “I told you so’s” to themselves as we watched the results roll in at City Hall, stunned at Eisenberger’s dramatic fall from grace.

I rather confidently told my American colleagues at McGill not to worry in 2016, completely assured that the United States would be fine under President Hillary Clinton.

So, yeah, electoral prognostication is something I try to avoid.

Still, people ask my opinion about these things all the time. Given how tapped into this world I am, it’s possible for me to get a fairly okay feel for how a campaign is progressing and where the prevailing winds might blow during any given election.

But I’ve learned by lesson. I won’t make any public declarative statements because that’s just inviting disaster.

I will, however, offer some observations from Hamilton’s municipal election campaign thus far. There have been 48 days of the campaign so far (counting from the end of nominations) and, with 18 days to go, a couple of things have become a lot more clear. Anything can happen in two weeks, but there hasn’t been anything overly dramatic or earth-shattering that has entirely upended the race. Instead, the slow drip drip drip of news and information has validated who is a contender, who is out-of-their-depth, and how Hamiltonians are feeling during this 136th election campaign in our fair city’s history.

Nothing you can bet on and no predictions. Just…casual observations.

Before we really dive in, it’s important that I make :･ﾟ✧:･ﾟ✧ a disclaimer ✧･ﾟ:✧:･ﾟ.

I know many of the candidates running. I’m provided advice and services to some of them. I am actively involved in campaigns. I still do part-time work at City Hall. See my post from April of this year entitled “The Rat King” for more info on how tangled my life is sometimes.

Despite my entanglements, every bit of commentary here comes from me and me alone, as an individual. Nothing here represents the perspectives of any campaign, candidate, or organization in this city. I’m an aging millennial with a PhD in local government that’s collecting dust and, when I can, try to use my patchy blend of humour, observations, expertise, insights, and research to better inform those who want to be “in the know”. I don’t even demand payment for said opinions, only suggest donations when folks can provide them. Oh, that reminds me:

What you read here is me, as a free and independent citizen whose Charter rights have not been stripped away simply because of my employment situation and associations, providing a personal perspective on civic affairs.

And, with that, let’s get into it.

Civic incivility

Let’s start off with the tone of the election. Generally speaking, it has been…all over the place.

There have been moments that are genuinely refreshing.

Out in Ward 11, for example, Councillor Mark Tadeson has been approaching the odd race for his seat with a dash of kindness.

As council races go, the one out in Binbrook has been strange. The two other candidates for the Ward 11 seat - Damon Mombourquette and Aaron Post - barely have an online presence, haven’t responded to the local media’s offers of free publicity, and left him entirely alone during the televised Ward 11 debate. It was during that debate fireside chat that Tadeson took some time to offer some kind words to both the other council candidates, saying “They’re both young men, both outstanding guys … I think their commitment is real - they just might be showing it in a different way.”¹

Aww.

Just a side note on the whole Ward 11 thing: I said the other candidates “barely” have an online presence. Mombourquette does have some social media accounts and a campaign website. But I noticed something interesting about the latter.

Way back in May, I wrote about what I was calling “The Muys/Kuruc Network”, a group of candidates connected to Flamborough-Glanbrook-Brant North MP Dan Muys and Hamilton East-Stoney Creek MP Ned Kuruc, both of the Conservative Party. In that piece, I identified Mombourquette and Ward 9 candidate Jonathan Stathakos as part of the Network. Both are young Conservatives with impressive political experience; Stathakos was Kuruc’s Chief of Staff and Mombourquette is an executive board member on Muys’s Conservative Party riding association.

Both candidates share similar experiences and values. So it would make sense that they would have similar campaign platforms and websites. But they’re like…really similar:

There’s nothing wrong with candidates working together on a common platform or sharing the same ideals. My whole doctoral dissertation was on political parties and organizations at the municipal level and I’m a big fan of the idea of introducing political parties to municipal elections to make them more professional, more consistent, and more ideas-focused (my work also indicated they can improve the diversity of both candidates and elected officials). And, importantly, formalizing parties can bring connections between candidates and organizations out into the open, rather than have such affiliations exist only in the shadows. Voters have a right to know who their candidates are working with and what kind of values they’ll bring to the table once elected.

Honestly, good on the local Tories for getting organized and fielding a few candidates under what is basically their party banner. We may have wildly different perspectives on how to address issues in our community, but you have to respect the hustle.

Long story short: cooperation is fine, but voters should know about it.

Regardless, back to civility.

We haven’t been getting many moments of good-sports-person-ship like what happened during the Ward 11 single candidate showcase on Cable 14. Instead, there have been fireworks of varying intensity.

During the first mayoral showcase, the top three contenders engaged in what Spec reporter Jon Wells called “an often spicy debate”.

🌶️🌶️🌶️ Bringing the heat! air horn sounds 🌶️🌶️🌶️

All three took shots at the others. Cooper claimed Horwath had overseen four years of decline, leading to the “worst roads”, “outrageous” taxes, and “planning that is the worst in the province.” Horwath said Cooper was living in a “fantasy world” and that Loomis was only “going to worry about his own political skin.” Loomis said Horwath has “done nothing but play politics” and only really started rolling out her mayoral agenda in the past month. The sparring between Cooper and Horwath became so intense that they handed Loomis an opportunity on a silver platter, allowing him to stand back, let them bicker, and then jump in with the line: “it’s become clear to everyone that we need a grown-up at city hall.”²  

Classic.

That show was nothing compared to what happened during the televised Ward 2 council debate. In a jaw-dropping moment, candidate Kelly Oucharek read aloud what she thought was Councillor Cameron Kroetsch’s former address (she was actually reading the address of a parking space).

The feud between Oucharek and Kroetsch has been in the public eye for years. The CBC referenced it in their article on the Ward 2 race. The r/Hamilton subreddit discussed it at length. At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ryan Murphy was interested in optioning it for Season 3 of Feud.

Oucharek’s long-standing issues with Kroetsch aside, it is incredibly unethical and extremely problematic that a candidate for public office tried to dox the incumbent just to score a political point. That was conduct unbecoming of someone offering themselves up as a candidate for public office. To her credit, Oucharek apologized for the comments in her closing statements.

I’ll be honest: I was hesitant to write about that interaction.

Oucharek has, in the past, focused on me and my writing (something I also wrote about in “The Rat King”) and powerful forces in the city are making it clear that criticism of the Ward 2 council candidate comes with consequences.

In late September, the CBC ran an article about Oucharek’s billboard campaign in the downtown core.

Over the summer, Oucharek had paid for a few billboards downtown. One, at John and Cannon, featured Oucharek’s photo and the text “Kelly Oucharek wishes you a great day”. That deserves another aww. The second, at King and Hess, showed Oucharek wearing scrubs and a stethoscope beside the text “Nurses see things differently. Vote Kelly Oucharek for Ward 2 Councillor”.

Now, the City of Hamilton’s election sign rules are pretty clear: no campaign signs earlier than 28 days before an election. Those rules will change after this election (that’s a story for another time) but, for this election, the City’s by-law on signs is very clear. Candidates were not permitted to put up election signs until 12:01 AM on Monday, September 28, 2026.

I myself first noticed Oucharek’s John and Cannon billboard on July 23. I know the exact date because I have a photo of said billboard on my phone. I didn’t share my photo with anyone, intending to add it to my growing collection of election sign-related pictures on my phone.

That’s not a joke. One of the earliest photos I have still in my phone’s photo catalogue was of a sign I found on the side of the highway in Alberta in 2012. It was after Canmore held a mayoral by-election (and the candidate advertised on the sign lost), so I knew the sign was litter at that point. I picked up and brought it home to Ontario. I think it might still be in my basement somewhere.

Another person who took a photo of that billboard was Ian Borsuk, Executive Director of Environment Hamilton and fellow traveler in local progressive political circles. Borsuk’s photo was actually used in the CBC article on the issue.

The article laid out the issue very well. The sign at John and Cannon fell into a bit of a grey area. That billboard simply read “Kelly Oucharek wishes you a great day”. Any person in the city with enough money could put up a similar billboard. Oucharek had already filed the paperwork necessary to become a candidate for the Ward 2 council seat and was actively campaigning, but the sign didn’t mention her candidacy.

The one at King and Hess did. The CBC article quotes Oucharek as saying she ran the first non-candidate-identifying billboard by the city’s by-law office and was cleared. The second billboard wasn’t cleared. After a complaint was submitted, it had to be changed to remove the part about Oucharek being a candidate for office.

The CBC article quotes McMaster professor Peter Graefe discussing the difference between provincial and municipal laws on elections, and gets quotes from other Ward 2 candidates Brian Lewis, Bernard Tompkins, Eisham Abdulkarim, and Tony Sciara.

That all was too much for the folks over at the Bay Observer, Hamilton’s leading website for conservative commentary.

The same day the CBC article came out, BO editor John Best published a piece entitled “It’s getting nasty outside as municipal election heads into final month”.

Best goes wide in this post.

It begins by calling the critique of Oucharek’s billboards “black ops”, implies the CBC was “baited” by Borsuk, and casts shade on Graefe’s comments by saying that the “always available professor at McMaster [was] implying there was something sinister about the poster.”

The start of the second paragraph reads:

Then, for good measure, Best posted a screenshot of Kroetsch’s nomination papers, signed by Borsuk, with Borsuk’s address completely visible. This image was later edited to redact Borsuk’s home address slightly better.

Best mentions the other sign, but claims there was a miscommunication between staff and by-law and that the King and Hess sign (which was digital) should have been considered general advertising as opposed to a campaign sign.

The piece makes claims that Oucharek began encountering “mysterious static” after she announced her run, including being rebuffed by neighbourhood associations which were the recipients of Ward 2 Community Grants and having someone meddle in a community meeting she tried to hold with representatives of the Hamilton Police Service.

There’s a lot to unpack here, but very quickly on some of the easily addressed points:

• The CBC got the photo from Borsuk, but the CBC’s reporters also live and work in Hamilton and may have been put onto the story because it’s, you know, of relevance to the campaign? Even if they did write the article because he sent the photo, it’s still relevant, given the ongoing conversation about advertising and signs in local elections.

• Dr. Graefe is an internationally-recognized expert in Canadian politics who is a charismatic and eloquent speaker, so the CBC would naturally go to him for comment. That’s why he’s listed on McMaster’s “Experts” page of people journalists know to contact. Graefe rightly pointed out that Oucharek was a candidate for council and that even just saying “have a good day” might be considered a campaign message. So his comments were less an implication that the sign was “sinister” and more that the sign was, you know, pretty blatant.

• The City’s bylaw on signs - Bylaw 22-031 - is extremely clear. In Hamilton, an election sign is an “object, entity, thing, surface, structure, display and any other component parts which are used as a visual medium or display for the purposes of…advertising, promoting, opposing or taking a position with respect to any Candidate, Election…[or] influencing electors to vote for or against a Candidate.” The sign at King and Hess was, by definition, an election sign according to the city and was, therefore, in violation of the by-law.

• Ward 2 Community Grants are scored using an impartial rubric which balances merit, impact, and need based on the applications submitted. Groups like the Argyll Cadets, Dr. Davey Elementary School, Fratellanza Racalmutese, the Hamilton Children’s Choir, the James Street North Baptist Church, the North End Breezes, St. Lawrence the Martyr Church, Theatre Aquarius, and Wesley Urban Ministries have received Ward 2 Community Grants in the past. Groups get funding to help the community, not at the whim of the Ward 2 councillor.

• It’s usually not good form for serving members of the Hamilton Police Service to be seen participating in campaign activities with candidates for local office while on the job or in uniform, as it can give the impression that the HPS is endorsing said candidate.

And then, of course, there’s the matter of the comments.

The BO’s comments section is extreme, even as comments sections go. Very few users tend to use their real names, though some commenters of note include Best, former Mayor Bob Bratina, and former Spec and CBC journalist Paul Wilson, the latter of which frequently lavishes praise on Best the the BO and expressing various conservative viewpoints.

Most of the comments section is anonymous though. Usually only identified by first names, commenters tend to repeat the same lines and then virtually high-five each other for echoing the same talking points with more enthusiasm than the commenter before them.

One name that pops up with regularity is “Kim”. Now, I can’t be sure that it’s just one “Kim” posting, but a lot of the posts under the name “Kim” sound the same and have similar areas of focus. There’s a “Kim” under almost every article, posting links to conspiracy theory websites, quipping about how the current council aims to “destroy civilization”, questioning the figures on COVID-19 deaths and expressing anti-vaxx views, stressing the need to purge “DEI” and climate change initiatives from local government, or calling the CBC Canada’s “Pravda”. It was a commenter named “Kim” who responded to a comment from Bratina with a reference to an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that I discussed the last time I wrote about the BO back in July of last year.

A real choose-your-own-misadventure of fringe far-right stuff.

So it was unsurprising that a “Kim” returned to comment on this article, latching onto the reference to myself and other “locally well-known Kroetsch supporters” by calling us “grifting activists” and “parasites”.

Hmm. “Grifting activist”, eh? Oh, that reminds me:

Jokes aside, that was unreservedly dehumanizing language. I replied to “Kim” with a note that Best should reconsider the kinds of comments he approves. To his credit, he deleted “Kim’s” post. The rest of “Kim’s” conspiracy theories and rants remain up.

Let’s be clear about what happened here.

Best got a copy of Kroetsch’s nomination form, which is available for public scrutiny. He then selected the names of people in the community recognizable for their progressive politics and published them, also choosing to publish a poorly redacted photo showing the address of one of those people. Someone in his increasingly radical comments section then quoted Best’s line, which included those names, and called the people listed “parasites”.

Dehumanization. Vilification. Othering.

This is how political violence starts.

If the election doesn’t go the way these people want it to, who knows what they might do? Who knows who they might blame? Who knows what steps they might take to “make things right”? The people in the BO comments section feel powerless. They feel like the state is out to get them and that the only thing preventing them from having control over their lives is a group of “leftists” unfairly imposing an agenda on them. Never mind that it’s not true or that no councillor has that kind of power. They believe that it’s the “well organized grifting activists” who are making them miserable. And when a whole bunch of radicalized, powerless people are whipped into a frenzy, bad things happen. Very bad things happen. Very, very bad things happen.

I’d strongly encourage Best to bring the temperature down. “Kim’s” commentary is growing increasingly extreme. The rest of the commenters on the BO’s stories are following. The pattern is troubling.

“It’s getting nasty outside as municipal election heads into final month”?

I’d say so.

Inflating the issues

I’ve got to say, the CBC Hamilton coverage of the election has been pretty great. They’ve looked at some major issues, been up-to-date on things that pop up, and have been doing a really solid job of getting ward-by-ward information out in a steady stream.

The ward-level information has been informative, as it allows readers to quickly compare and contrast the candidates running for council. It gets council candidates to respond to issues in their own words, providing them the space to share their perspectives and demonstrate how prepared they are for the job. In many ways, the CBC’s coverage is the most accessible way to figure out which issues matter to which candidates.

A lot of the same issues have been coming up. Candidates talk at length about the condition of Hamilton’s roads, public safety, and transparency at City Hall. Only a couple of candidates have touched on AI data centres and an upsetting few have mentioned the city’s ongoing housing crisis.

But one of the things that stands out for me is more of a buzz word than an actual policy. It’s something that Mayor Andrea Horwath has made a cornerstone of her campaign, despite it being a decidedly right-wing policy. Rob Cooper is all on board too.

It’s the idea of “keeping tax increases under the rate of inflation”.³

A little Econ 101 here: in this country, inflation is measured by Statistics Canada and the Bank of Canada.

These organizations measure inflation by using the Consumer Price Index or “CPI”.

The CPI is calculated by measuring the monthly and yearly price change of consumer goods in eight categories:

• Food (the cost of groceries and restaurant meals)

• Shelter (rent, mortgage, insurance, etc.)

• Household expenses (phones, internet, child care, cleaning supplies)

• Clothing and footwear

• Transportation (including the cost of gas, car maintenance, transit costs, etc.)

• Health and personal care (prescriptions, haircuts, glasses, etc.)

• Recreation, education and reading, and

• Alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, and recreational cannabis

These are things that households spend money on. The inflation rate really impacts individual consumers and households. Understanding that is a good way for the government to use its powers to adjust the market or (in an ideal world) offer services and/or encourage people to offer services in a more worker- and community-focused way.

You know what isn’t calculated by the CPI?

Concrete. Steel. Playground equipment. Snow plows. Giant buckets of chlorine for community pools.

The cost of the goods a municipality might need are different than the cost of consumer goods. Sometimes, like during a trade war for example, the cost of certain goods jump dramatically while others stay the same or increase only slightly. Rents are plateauing, internet prices are steady, the cost of a bottle of VQA wine isn’t jumping dramatically, but the cost of a TYMCO street sweeper from Waco, Texas might be a lot higher next year than it was this year.

Capping property tax increases to at or below the rate of inflation is just fiscal irresponsibility in the name of populist pandering. It sounds good to budget-conscious municipal voters, but it ignores the reality of an actual municipal budget.

A word of warning: there’s math coming up.

As of July, Ontario’s inflation rate was about 2%. Capping Hamilton’s property tax increase for 2027 at 2% would mean the maximum residential tax rate in urban Hamilton would be 1.58814%. Given that the average home is valued at $387,100, that would mean an average annual tax bill increase of around $120.

Now that’s assuming that the 2% cap is across the board. If that’s the case, the city will need to spread that 2% across city services, the police, existing Agencies, Boards, and Commissions, and infrastructure.

Capping the increase at 2% means that, with around $1.3 billion in property tax revenue, the most the city can raise next year is an additional $26,000,000. That’s for day-to-day operations, arising needs, and maintenance.

But here’s the problem: Hamilton has an infrastructure deficit that’s somewhere in the ballpark of $3 billion and $8 billion. That means we’ll need that much money just to fix the stuff we already have. Roads, parks, social housing, community centres, golf courses, etc.

Simply put, if Hamilton caps property tax increases at 2%, a lot of stuff is going to have to go. We’re looking at selling municipal assets, deferring road maintenance, maybe even closing community centres, libraries, and pools.

Angry about potholes and short hours at the local free swim? You ain’t seen nothing yet, pal.

So far, nine council candidates, plus Cooper and Horwath, have pledged their support for this idea. Among the proponents are former councillor Jason Farr, looking to make a comeback in Ward 4 this time, and incumbent Ward 5 Councillor Matt Francis.

Both Cooper and Horwath went a step further, telling the Spec’s Scott Radley that they would have the inflation cap in place for this coming budget, which the mayor has to prepare by mid-January.³ But whomever the mayor is, they’ll only be sworn in on November 15, meaning they’ll have two months to completely gut the budget to get the numbers where they’ve pledged to have them. With so little time, things are bound to be cut without enough time and thought into whether they should be cut.

Remember when the American administration tasked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) with slashing the US budget? They started hacking with such enthusiasm that they ended up doing irreparable damage to everything from the National Weather Service to USAID, literally putting lives at risk with their carelessness.

If either mayoral candidate wins and sticks to their pledge, get ready for the DOGE-ification of Hamilton’s municipal budget. The cuts will be deep, the impacts to service will be devastating, and the city will stagnate.

The line might be appealing to some, but capping tax increases to the rate of inflation would be an act of economic restlessness.

Turnout blues

Okay, I know this has been a heavy math edition, but here’s a little more for you.

In 2022, 30,893 ballots were cast during the city’s advance voting period, coming out to about 22.12% of the total number of ballots cast in the election. And, in 2022, turnout was just over 35%, meaning around 7.6% of all eligible voters cast advance ballots.

In one weekend of advance voting during this election, just 7,310 ballots were cast at advance polls. That’s just 23.7% of the number of advance votes cast in 2022 and represents under 2% of the eligible population.

There are two more weekends of advance voting coming up. If the same number of people vote each weekend, we’re only at 21,930 ballots. That would be a 29% decrease in advance ballots cast.

If that pattern holds for the entire election, we’re looking at a voter turnout somewhere around 25%.

YIKES.

There should be alarm bells going off across the city.

If turnout does indeed drop to just 25%, that would represent the lowest voter turnout in a municipal election in Hamilton since 1941.

In that year, when the city was more focused on defeating the Nazis than electing members to council, only 22.1 of electors cast ballots. Not that there was much to vote for; the mayor, councillors for Wards 2 and 6, and all but Ward 1’s school trustee were acclaimed. The Spec quietly sandwiched results between calls for more people to enlist and support the war effort.⁴

Voter turnout at 25% would be significantly damaging to our civic democracy. Only a quarter of voters casting ballots means there’s something seriously wrong.

Yeah, people are tired of politics right now. Yeah, the province has made it clear that municipal governments only get to do what they allow them to do. Yeah, some folks may not be inspired by the slate of mayoral candidates or the folks running in their ward for council or care at all about the school board (check out my #HamOnt 2026 School Trustee Candidates factsheet for more info on your trustee candidates), but this is your chance to make a statement.

Think everyone is unqualified? Spoil your ballot!

Not sure where you stand in relation to the candidates in your area? Try the Vote Compass tool!

Hankering for a massive surge of class consciousness and the start of the worker’s revolution? Well, I can’t help you there, but can make a passionate case that addressing the everyday needs of people is an important step on the road to building a better world.

There are two more weekends of advance voting. I implore you to talk to your friends, families, neighbours, coworkers, and associates and encourage them to go out and vote. There is ample information on the people running and the actual voting process only takes a few minutes. Your city, your community, and you, yourself, count on it. What our local government does matters, so don’t let someone else choose your council for you.

So that’s the state of the race with 18 days to go. Some civility, a whole lot of incivility, some strange math, and a not-so-great first weekend of voter turnout.

Just over two weeks to go. And, in local politics, anything can happen in two weeks.

Maybe hold off on making any bets just yet.

1  _{Sebastian Bron. “Hamilton’s Ward 11 debate a one-man show” Hamilton Spectator, October 3, 2026 (Spec link - Paywalled).}

2  _{Jon Wells. “Hamilton mayoral election debate gets spicy: ‘You have done nothing but play politics’” Hamilton Spectator, September 22, 2026 (Spec link - Paywalled).}

3  _{Scott Radley. “Can Hamilton’s next mayor really fix the budget in the time available?” Hamilton Spectator, October 8, 2026 (Spec link - Paywalled).}

4  _{Hamilton Spectator, December 2, 1941, pg 15. - Spec archive link.}