Friday, July 17, 2026
With Slate Asset Management- On A.I. Data Centres in Hamilton
The following is an interview conducted by The Hamiltonian with Slate Asset Management on the topic of A.I. data centres.
Before reading the interview, it is important to understand the context in which our questions were posed. That context was communicated to Slate Asset Management in advance and is encapsulated in the following statement we provided to them:
Here is the interview:
Our role as landowner is to prepare this site for world-class tenants, not to operate individual facilities ourselves. The commercial and operational decisions about how services are delivered from any future facility will be made by the companies and organizations who ultimately locate here, and we are not in a position to make commitments on their behalf through a planning process.
What we can say is that Steelport's vision has always been about building genuine economic activity in Hamilton, not creating pass-through infrastructure. The scale of investment we are making in this site, from remediation to servicing to long-term community engagement, reflects a long-term commitment to Hamilton as a place. We will continue to seek tenants whose operations match that vision.
Data centres require significant municipal infrastructure and electrical capacity. Would Steelport be prepared to explore a Community Benefits Agreement or similar mechanism that would ensure Hamilton receives municipal revenues and community investments beyond those normally associated with commercial property taxation?
We are always open to exploring how Steelport can deliver the broadest possible benefit to the Hamilton community, and we take that obligation seriously. We have been in discussion with the Hamilton Community Benefits Network over the last few years about how a Community Benefits Agreement could be implemented at Steelport at the right time. The development of Steelport will bring meaningful investment and support to the community, and there are various ways in which community benefits can be implemented.
The economic case for this site is substantial. Once it’s operational, Steelport has the potential to generate up to 30,000 new local jobs. More recent projections put the construction-phase impact alone at 102,000 jobs and $12.5 billion in GDP. Steelport will also reactivate 3,400 metres of Lake Ontario waterfront, returning access to Hamiltonians for the first time in a century, and providing multimodal access throughout the site. These are examples of the benefits that can flow from this project's realization, and we think they are significant.
We are genuinely committed to Hamilton's long-term prosperity and will continue to engage with the City and community about how Steelport's development can best deliver for residents.
Data centres are frequently associated with substantial capital investment but comparatively few permanent jobs. Would Steelport support establishing publicly reported employment targets, including a minimum number of permanent, Hamilton-based positions associated with any future data centre development?
Steelport is an 800-acre site – double the size of Hamilton’s downtown core – that is expected to have a very wide range of uses on site upon completion. Digital infrastructure is just one use and would make up a minority portion of the Steelport site. The vast majority of the site is planned for uses like manufacturing facilities that produce vehicles, solar panels, or medical devices; logistics and distribution centres that move food and other goods; and office, educational, and research spaces that can support training, innovation, and partnerships with colleges and universities.
According to recent economic impact studies, Steelport is expected to generate up to 30,000 new jobs once the site is fully built out. The construction-phase alone is estimated to generate 102,000 jobs and $12.5 billion in GDP.
Specific employment requirements and mandates for the facilities that one-day operate at Steelport will be the responsibility of the companies and organizations that ultimately lease of buy land at the site, and it would not be appropriate for us to make commitments on behalf of a future operator who has not yet been identified through any approvals process.
You have stated publicly that "there are many other controls that the city will continue to have." Would Steelport support key community protections ultimately being incorporated into legally enforceable planning conditions, rather than relying solely on voluntary commitments?
The controls that apply to development at Steelport are not voluntary. The City of Hamilton has a robust set of planning tools, including zoning conditions, site plan agreements, official plan policies, and development approvals, all of which are legally enforceable. Any future development at Steelport, including any data centre facility, will be subject to those mechanisms.
We have consistently said there are many controls the City will continue to have over this site. What we want Hamilton residents to understand is that those controls already exist and carry legal force. We are committed to working transparently within that framework.
Slate has stated that the current appeal is "not an attempt to fast-track data centre development." If that is indeed the case, would Steelport publicly support deferring any formal data centre development applications until Hamilton has completed its current review of land-use policies and established its permanent regulatory framework?
To give important context: the only facility currently proposed at Steelport through any formal process is a Digital Research Alliance of Canada (DRAC) facility on about 6 acres of the 800 total acres, which is part of a competitive federal government process. There are no other private sector data centre facilities currently proposed for this site. Any future facility, from any proponent, would be required to go through standard review and approval processes.
We support Hamilton having a clear, thoughtful land-use policy for data centre development. That clarity is good for the City, good for residents, and good for investors who want predictability. We will engage constructively with that process as it unfolds.
You have stated that data centres are only one possible use for Steelport. If a data centre were ultimately approved, would Steelport support a model whereby at least 75% of the commercial services provided by that facility—including cloud hosting, AI processing, colocation, and enterprise services—are delivered from the Hamilton facility, rather than the site functioning primarily as infrastructure supporting operations elsewhere?
Our role as landowner is to prepare this site for world-class tenants, not to operate individual facilities ourselves. The commercial and operational decisions about how services are delivered from any future facility will be made by the companies and organizations who ultimately locate here, and we are not in a position to make commitments on their behalf through a planning process.
What we can say is that Steelport's vision has always been about building genuine economic activity in Hamilton, not creating pass-through infrastructure. The scale of investment we are making in this site, from remediation to servicing to long-term community engagement, reflects a long-term commitment to Hamilton as a place. We will continue to seek tenants whose operations match that vision.
Data centres require significant municipal infrastructure and electrical capacity. Would Steelport be prepared to explore a Community Benefits Agreement or similar mechanism that would ensure Hamilton receives municipal revenues and community investments beyond those normally associated with commercial property taxation?
We are always open to exploring how Steelport can deliver the broadest possible benefit to the Hamilton community, and we take that obligation seriously. We have been in discussion with the Hamilton Community Benefits Network over the last few years about how a Community Benefits Agreement could be implemented at Steelport at the right time. The development of Steelport will bring meaningful investment and support to the community, and there are various ways in which community benefits can be implemented.
The economic case for this site is substantial. Once it’s operational, Steelport has the potential to generate up to 30,000 new local jobs. More recent projections put the construction-phase impact alone at 102,000 jobs and $12.5 billion in GDP. Steelport will also reactivate 3,400 metres of Lake Ontario waterfront, returning access to Hamiltonians for the first time in a century, and providing multimodal access throughout the site. These are examples of the benefits that can flow from this project's realization, and we think they are significant.
We are genuinely committed to Hamilton's long-term prosperity and will continue to engage with the City and community about how Steelport's development can best deliver for residents.
Data centres are frequently associated with substantial capital investment but comparatively few permanent jobs. Would Steelport support establishing publicly reported employment targets, including a minimum number of permanent, Hamilton-based positions associated with any future data centre development?
Steelport is an 800-acre site – double the size of Hamilton’s downtown core – that is expected to have a very wide range of uses on site upon completion. Digital infrastructure is just one use and would make up a minority portion of the Steelport site. The vast majority of the site is planned for uses like manufacturing facilities that produce vehicles, solar panels, or medical devices; logistics and distribution centres that move food and other goods; and office, educational, and research spaces that can support training, innovation, and partnerships with colleges and universities.
According to recent economic impact studies, Steelport is expected to generate up to 30,000 new jobs once the site is fully built out. The construction-phase alone is estimated to generate 102,000 jobs and $12.5 billion in GDP.
Specific employment requirements and mandates for the facilities that one-day operate at Steelport will be the responsibility of the companies and organizations that ultimately lease of buy land at the site, and it would not be appropriate for us to make commitments on behalf of a future operator who has not yet been identified through any approvals process.
You have stated publicly that "there are many other controls that the city will continue to have." Would Steelport support key community protections ultimately being incorporated into legally enforceable planning conditions, rather than relying solely on voluntary commitments?
The controls that apply to development at Steelport are not voluntary. The City of Hamilton has a robust set of planning tools, including zoning conditions, site plan agreements, official plan policies, and development approvals, all of which are legally enforceable. Any future development at Steelport, including any data centre facility, will be subject to those mechanisms.
We have consistently said there are many controls the City will continue to have over this site. What we want Hamilton residents to understand is that those controls already exist and carry legal force. We are committed to working transparently within that framework.
Slate has stated that the current appeal is "not an attempt to fast-track data centre development." If that is indeed the case, would Steelport publicly support deferring any formal data centre development applications until Hamilton has completed its current review of land-use policies and established its permanent regulatory framework?
To give important context: the only facility currently proposed at Steelport through any formal process is a Digital Research Alliance of Canada (DRAC) facility on about 6 acres of the 800 total acres, which is part of a competitive federal government process. There are no other private sector data centre facilities currently proposed for this site. Any future facility, from any proponent, would be required to go through standard review and approval processes.
We support Hamilton having a clear, thoughtful land-use policy for data centre development. That clarity is good for the City, good for residents, and good for investors who want predictability. We will engage constructively with that process as it unfolds.
The Hamiltonian thanks Slate Asset Management for engaging with Hamiltonians on The Hamiltonian!
Thursday, July 16, 2026
Candidates Who Won’t Answer Questions Are Telling Voters Something
The real test of a candidate is not what they say when they choose the question, write the script and control the microphone. It is what they do when someone else asks a fair question and expects an answer. Increasingly, some candidates appear unwilling to take that test.
They will issue statements. They will direct voters to their websites. They will deliver speeches. They will post videos and campaign material. Yet when legitimate questions arrive from independent media, they go silent.
That is not communications strategy. It is political cowardice.
Candidates asking Hamiltonians for the authority to make decisions about hundreds of millions of public dollars, taxation, housing, policing, development and the future direction of this city should have enough confidence in their own convictions to answer reasonable questions.
A candidate who communicates only when the conditions are controlled is not necessarily demonstrating discipline. They may be demonstrating calculation: determining which questions are politically advantageous, which audiences are useful and which answers carry the least electoral risk. That is campaigning by calculation rather than candour. Is that who we want in government?
An unpopular position honestly defended tells voters more about a candidate than a dozen carefully crafted slogans. Candidates should also understand something else: refusing to answer is itself an answer.
It tells voters how a candidate may behave once elected. If someone will not engage with independent questions while actively seeking your vote, when they are theoretically at their most accessible, what reason is there to believe they will become more accountable once they have secured four years in office?
At The Hamiltonian, we encounter candidates who truly step up—candidates who are unafraid to state their views and who appreciate the opportunity to answer fair questions openly and unfettered.
But we have also encountered the other extreme. Sometimes, after a deadline has passed, we are told that email problems were experienced and are asked whether answers can still be submitted. Sometimes, we receive polished statements from campaigns explaining why the timing of our questions is simply not right and they will respond once a certain campaign milestone date is reached. We have even been told that we ought to group our questions together so as not to have a greater chance of receiving an answer.
Each explanation may sound reasonable in isolation. But taken together, they can reveal a troubling approach to public accountability: engagement on the candidate’s terms, according to the candidate’s timing, and preferably within circumstances the campaign can control.
Candidates are, of course, busy. Campaigns are demanding. But seeking public office necessarily means being asked questions—sometimes unexpectedly, sometimes inconveniently and sometimes about issues a campaign would rather not discuss.
That is not an imposition. It is part of the job they are asking voters to give them.
Hamilton voters should therefore look beyond the campaign machinery.
Look beyond the professionally written biographies. Look beyond the slogans, endorsements, staged announcements and carefully controlled social media feeds.
- Ask who is willing to answer questions they did not write.
- Ask who is prepared to defend a position without knowing in advance whether it will be popular.
- Ask who engages when there is no guarantee of favourable coverage.
And pay particular attention to those who repeatedly choose silence.
Sometimes, the questions a candidate refuses to answer tell voters more than anything written on their campaign website.
It is difficult to understand how a candidate can ask for your trust—to serve as your Mayor, Ward Councillor or School Board Trustee—while playing it safe when it comes to earning that trust.
Sometimes, the questions a candidate refuses to answer tell voters more than anything written on their campaign website.
It is difficult to understand how a candidate can ask for your trust—to serve as your Mayor, Ward Councillor or School Board Trustee—while playing it safe when it comes to earning that trust.
Cal DiFalco, Publisher
The Hamiltonian
Candidates Talk A.I.
The Hamiltonian recently reached out to all candidates currently registered on the City of Hamilton’s website who have provided a public email address.
We posed simple, open-ended questions:
Hamiltonians want to know what you think about A.I. Is Hamilton handling the issue the right way? What are your thoughts on the recent vote at City Council and the broader debate surrounding A.I. in Hamilton?
Our intention is straightforward: to give candidates an opportunity to share their views, in their own words, on the role of artificial intelligence in Hamilton and how the City is approaching this rapidly evolving issue. There are no prescribed positions and no right or wrong answers. We want to hear what candidates think. Responses will be added as they are received and presented in alphabetical order by the candidates’ last names.
Daly, Mark- Councillor Candidate Ward 7
I’ve knocked on hundreds of doors this summer, and people raise this frequently alongside roads, taxes, and accountability.
Artificial intelligence and data centres are a new technology and a new industry, and Hamilton should be open to investment and the jobs that come with it.
At the same time, I would oppose any project that increased electricity costs, created noise problems, harmed our environment, or negatively affected Hamilton residents. People have legitimate questions about power use, water use, and the impact on our community, and those concerns deserve clear answers.
It is also clear that the legal advice provided to council yesterday changed the minds of several councillors. From the outside, it appears that municipal authority in this area may be limited.
My position is straightforward: if these projects can proceed without harming residents and with appropriate safeguards in place, Hamilton should welcome the investment and economic opportunities they bring. My priority will always be protecting the interests of the people of Hamilton.
Christopher De Melo, Councillor Candidate Ward 3
my thoughts on A.I are that it is a piece of technology that is being sold to us as the tool to potentially fix all of our current problems. It's being touted as the future and that we must embrace is. It is being communicated by government and corporations as the most important piece of technology we need to invest in. And it feel like all of this information is being sold to us by people who claim to be much smarter people than me.
Behind the buzzwords and media rhetoric the benefits of AI is not in dispute. It is good at two things: complex pattern recognition and turning huge amounts of complicated information into something easier to understand.
When applied to physical, scientific, and operational problems, this capability translates into possible breakthroughs that save lives, reduce waste, and solve real-world logistical bottlenecks.
- Tools like AlphaFold solved a 50-year-old biological mystery by predicting the 3D shapes of over 200 million proteins. This allows scientists to design targeted molecules to block disease pathways. Such as recent breakthroughs in mapping hidden Alzheimer's triggers or targeting drug-resistant tuberculosis in weeks rather than decades. - https://www.wired.com/story/alphafold-changed-science-after-5-years-its-still-evolving/
- In India, Precision Agriculture: Rather than blanket-spraying fields with pesticides or water, smart tractors equipped with computer vision identify and target individual weeds or dry patches of soil. This reduces pesticide runoff and water usage by up to 40%. - https://frontline.thehindu.com/society/india-ai-sovereignty-compute-data-and-governance/article71103889.ece
My issue with the way Hamilton is handing A.I Data Centres in particular is how every attempt to place them in the city core is being done in a non-direct way - and it almost feels deceptive.
Whether it is the attempts to sever the land, the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, or the closed-door council discussions about AI data centres, the process has felt indirect and secretive. That lack of transparency makes it difficult for Hamilton residents to trust the organizations supporting these developments.
Treating Hamiltonians with transparency, respect, and honesty will build trust with residents - but at this point it feel like only bad feelings, and bad vibes.
That being said - my thoughts on the current vote in council killing the moritorium on AI Data Centres is complicated. Having a closed door session does not bode well for trust and transparency, something that in recent days - feels lacking at city hall. My thoughts go to the councillors that voted to kill the moritorium because of an apparent lawsuit the city would open itself up to if they decided to approve it. If that is the case then I hope that those specific councillors and mayor implement some checks and balances that could address the massive environmental impact of these centres. Because, at this point, I see no way of stopping the development with the moritorium defeated.
Residents can curb data center expansion by targeting the municipal planning and regulatory process. This means actively supporting the city's legal defense of zoning and land severance denials such as the fight over the massive Steelport lands when developers appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Simultaneously, community members can lobby council to pass protective municipal performance bylaws.
By enacting strict local limits on continuous fan noise, prohibiting the use of municipal drinking water for cooling, and requiring developers to build needed waste-heat capture systems, the city can make environmental compliance at the core of the project.
Concurrently, advocacy can also include provincial utility allocations and direct negotiation. Because these massive facilities require enormous amounts of electricity, residents can pressure the province and the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to prioritize grid capacity for housing and traditional manufacturing over data centers. At the local level, demanding legally binding Community Benefit Agreements forces developers to provide massive financial offsets, local infrastructure funding, and environmental safeguards.
Currently - it feels as though the desire of industry and city council to put this data centre in the city limits is steamrolling any concerns for environmental or health impacts. It also feels as though for many residents - especially those living in the riding where the proposed data centre will go are being summarily ignored - or dismissed as anti-progress.
Let me make it clear - I am not anti AI - or anti Data Centre - but I do think it’s fair to ask questions about whether we are prioritizing financial gain over the well-being of residents of the city. In downtown Hamilton we already deal with environmental concerns as we spend another summer fighting black soot raining on us. Just because a data centre is better than a steel mill shouldn’t be a good enough reason to plop a new problem in the city because it’s better than the old one.
Before the Ballot with Olivia “Moy” Fung, Councillor Candidate for Hamilton City Council – Ward 10
What motivated you to run for City Council in this election?
For nearly two decades, I have served individuals, families, business owners, organizations, and communities through community-based programs, social enterprise, and nonprofit work.
My decision to run for City Council comes from a genuine desire to serve the community where I live and to use the experience and skills I have developed to make a meaningful contribution.
I am a people-centred leader, so my work always begins with listening to people and understanding what is affecting their everyday lives. Local government gives me the opportunity to remain close to residents, carry their concerns to City Hall, and work toward practical solutions.
Advocating for people, bringing people together, and addressing barriers that affect their quality of life have been at the centre of my work for many years. Running for Council is a natural extension of that commitment.
What are your top 3 priorities if elected?
I am still listening to residents and learning more about the issues affecting Ward 10. I do not want to act as though I already have all the answers or decide what the community’s top priorities are without hearing from the people who live here.
However, three areas are beginning to stand out.
Responsible growth and infrastructure. New development must be supported by roads, drainage, transit, parks, public services, and meaningful consultation with residents.
Roads, traffic, and safe movement. Residents should be able to move through Ward 10 safely and efficiently, whether they are driving, walking, cycling, or using public transit.
Safe and well-maintained neighbourhoods. That includes timely bylaw enforcement, fire prevention, good lighting, accessible public spaces, and clean, well-maintained parks and neighbourhood areas.
These priorities are informed by early conversations with residents and my ongoing research. They will continue to be shaped by the people who live, work, and raise their families in Stoney Creek, Fruitland, and Winona.
Can you describe a time when you had to make a tough decision and how you handled it?
A few years ago, I made the difficult decision to pause a transitional housing program I had created for young people experiencing mental health challenges, addiction, housing instability, and the transition out of the child welfare system.
The home had become a safe and supportive community for the residents, so the decision was heartbreaking. However, without stable government funding, I had reached the limit of what I could responsibly sustain through my own resources.
I had to be honest that continuing without adequate funding, staffing, and supports could eventually compromise the quality and safety of the program. I chose to pause it rather than make promises I could no longer responsibly keep.
Throughout the transition, I worked with the residents to identify referrals, alternative housing, and other available supports so they were not left to navigate the change alone.
That experience taught me that leadership is not only about starting important work. It is also about making difficult decisions with care, planning responsibly, and taking responsibility for the people affected.
What distinguishes you from other candidates in your ward?
What distinguishes me is the combination of practical leadership experience and a genuine commitment to people.
I have spent years building organizations, developing partnerships, leading teams, creating programs, and helping move ideas into action. That experience has taught me how to bring people together, follow through, and stay focused on the people affected by the decisions being made.
Beyond my experience, I care deeply about whether people feel heard, respected, and included. My approach is to listen first, involve residents early, and keep them informed throughout the process
I want to be a councillor who is present, accessible, and connected to the everyday realities of Ward 10. My goal is to keep people at the centre of the work and to advocate for infrastructure, services, and neighbourhood planning that allow residents to live and age with safety, dignity, and a strong quality of life.
That is the different approach I hope to bring to City Hall.
How can residents reach you or get involved in your campaign?
Residents can reach me at oliviafungward10@gmail.com or through my website at oliviafung.ca.
I will also be out in the community throughout the summer and fall, meeting residents, attending local events, and continuing to listen.
I welcome conversations, ideas, and anyone who would like to volunteer or get involved. This campaign is about the people of Ward 10, and I want residents to feel part of the process.
Thank you for the opportunity to share more about why I am running and the kind of service I hope to bring to the community.
Thank-you Olivia for engaging with Hamiltonians on The Hamiltonian!
Wednesday, July 15, 2026
Hamilton Council Rejects Interim Control Bylaw on New AI Data Centres
Hamilton City Council has rejected an attempt to temporarily halt new artificial intelligence data centre development while the City considers how such facilities should be regulated.
An Interim Control Bylaw moved by Ward 3 Councillor Nrinder Nann was defeated Wednesday by a vote of 10-6. The proposed bylaw would have controlled the use of land, buildings and structures for new artificial intelligence data centres within Hamilton's industrial zones. Data centres are already restricted to industrially zoned lands and are not permitted on commercial or residential properties.
Voting in favour of the interim control bylaw were Councillors Cameron Kroetsch, Nrinder Nann, Matt Francis, Tom Jackson, Esther Pauls and Alex Wilson. Mayor Andrea Horwath and Councillors Maureen Wilson, Tammy Hwang, Rob Cooper, Brad Clark, Jeff Beattie, Mark Tadeson, Craig Cassar, Mike Spadafora and Ted McMeekin voted against it. The 10-6 vote means Hamilton will not impose a temporary city-wide planning freeze specifically targeting new AI data centres.
The decision comes amid an increasingly heated debate over whether Hamilton should embrace data centre investment or exercise greater caution because of concerns surrounding electricity and water consumption, land use, environmental impacts and the potential demands these facilities could place on local infrastructure. Those questions have taken on particular significance as Hamilton considers the future of its industrial lands and the potential arrival of large-scale data centre developments.
The defeat of the interim control bylaw, however, should not be confused with Council giving blanket approval to any particular data centre proposal. Individual developments remain subject to whatever planning, zoning, servicing and regulatory requirements apply to them. What Wednesday's vote does reveal is a significant philosophical divide around the Council table. Six members were prepared to temporarily restrict new AI data centre development while Hamilton examines the issue. Ten were not.
An interim control bylaw is an extraordinary planning instrument. It can effectively put development on hold while a municipality studies an emerging land-use issue and determines whether new rules are required. Supporters can argue that a temporary pause provides breathing room before potentially consequential developments proceed. Opponents can reasonably argue that municipalities should not freeze otherwise lawful development without compelling evidence that existing planning controls are inadequate.
Hamiltonians should therefore be careful about reducing this vote to a simple question of who is "for" or "against" AI. The more important question is what comes next. If Council believes an interim freeze was unnecessary, the public is entitled to know what safeguards Council believes are sufficient instead. How will Hamilton evaluate the cumulative electricity demands of multiple data centres? What are the implications for water consumption and infrastructure? What standards will govern noise, backup generation and environmental impacts? How will Council determine whether these developments produce economic benefits proportionate to the resources and industrial land they consume?
And perhaps most importantly: will Hamilton establish a clear policy framework before major applications arrive, or develop that framework while applications are already moving through the system?
Council has decided against pressing the pause button. Now the responsibility falls on those who voted against the interim control bylaw to demonstrate that Hamilton can proceed without one — and that the City will be ready for what may be coming.
An Interim Control Bylaw moved by Ward 3 Councillor Nrinder Nann was defeated Wednesday by a vote of 10-6. The proposed bylaw would have controlled the use of land, buildings and structures for new artificial intelligence data centres within Hamilton's industrial zones. Data centres are already restricted to industrially zoned lands and are not permitted on commercial or residential properties.
Voting in favour of the interim control bylaw were Councillors Cameron Kroetsch, Nrinder Nann, Matt Francis, Tom Jackson, Esther Pauls and Alex Wilson. Mayor Andrea Horwath and Councillors Maureen Wilson, Tammy Hwang, Rob Cooper, Brad Clark, Jeff Beattie, Mark Tadeson, Craig Cassar, Mike Spadafora and Ted McMeekin voted against it. The 10-6 vote means Hamilton will not impose a temporary city-wide planning freeze specifically targeting new AI data centres.
The decision comes amid an increasingly heated debate over whether Hamilton should embrace data centre investment or exercise greater caution because of concerns surrounding electricity and water consumption, land use, environmental impacts and the potential demands these facilities could place on local infrastructure. Those questions have taken on particular significance as Hamilton considers the future of its industrial lands and the potential arrival of large-scale data centre developments.
The defeat of the interim control bylaw, however, should not be confused with Council giving blanket approval to any particular data centre proposal. Individual developments remain subject to whatever planning, zoning, servicing and regulatory requirements apply to them. What Wednesday's vote does reveal is a significant philosophical divide around the Council table. Six members were prepared to temporarily restrict new AI data centre development while Hamilton examines the issue. Ten were not.
An interim control bylaw is an extraordinary planning instrument. It can effectively put development on hold while a municipality studies an emerging land-use issue and determines whether new rules are required. Supporters can argue that a temporary pause provides breathing room before potentially consequential developments proceed. Opponents can reasonably argue that municipalities should not freeze otherwise lawful development without compelling evidence that existing planning controls are inadequate.
Hamiltonians should therefore be careful about reducing this vote to a simple question of who is "for" or "against" AI. The more important question is what comes next. If Council believes an interim freeze was unnecessary, the public is entitled to know what safeguards Council believes are sufficient instead. How will Hamilton evaluate the cumulative electricity demands of multiple data centres? What are the implications for water consumption and infrastructure? What standards will govern noise, backup generation and environmental impacts? How will Council determine whether these developments produce economic benefits proportionate to the resources and industrial land they consume?
And perhaps most importantly: will Hamilton establish a clear policy framework before major applications arrive, or develop that framework while applications are already moving through the system?
Council has decided against pressing the pause button. Now the responsibility falls on those who voted against the interim control bylaw to demonstrate that Hamilton can proceed without one — and that the City will be ready for what may be coming.
Before the Ballot- School Trustee Edition with Amanda Fehrman, Candidate for Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board Trustee (Public) – Wards 11 and 12.
Please tell our readers a little about yourself and what motivated you to seek election as a School Board Trustee.
My name is Amanda Fehrman, and I am honoured to serve as the Hamilton Wentworth District School Board Trustee for Wards 11 and 12. I have lived in our community for over 20 years and bring a unique perspective as a parent, hockey coach, IT professional, and long time education advocate.
Before being elected Trustee in 2022, I served as Chair of the HWDSB Parent Involvement Committee, where I worked alongside families, educators, and community partners to strengthen public education. I sought election because I believe every student deserves the opportunity to succeed, whether that path includes academics, athletics, the arts, robotics, or the skilled trades. I wanted to ensure that the voices of students, parents, and staff were heard at the board table and that decisions were made with a focus on student well being and long term success.
In your view, what are the three most important issues currently facing students, parents, educators, and the school board, and how would you help address them?
The first challenge is adequate and sustainable funding. School boards are expected to do more with less while managing rising costs and increasing student needs. I will continue to advocate to the provincial government for fair, predictable funding that allows us to maintain high quality programs, safe schools, and the supports students need to thrive.
The second issue is student well being and belonging. Students learn best when they feel safe, included, and supported. This means continuing to prioritize mental health supports, creating positive school climates, and ensuring that every student feels a
Council Cannot Simply Replace Anjali Menezes and Move On
Dr. Anjali Menezes has resigned from the Hamilton Police Service Board, and Hamilton City Council should resist any temptation to simply thank her for her service, advertise the vacancy and move on.
Her resignation letter makes that response inadequate.
Menezes, a Council-appointed citizen member of the Board since 2023, leaves making extraordinary allegations about the governance and culture of the body responsible for civilian oversight of policing in Hamilton. She says her voice was "systematically marginalized and silenced" and describes procedural exclusion, identity-based mistreatment and what she characterizes as an institutional resistance to dissenting perspectives.
More seriously, she alleges broader failures of governance, transparency and meaningful oversight. She accuses the Board of increasingly functioning as a "rubber stamp" for the police service it is supposed to oversee and has taken the extraordinary step of calling upon Ontario's Solicitor General to dissolve the Board and appoint an independent administrator.
These are allegations, and they should be treated as such. Other members of the Board may strongly dispute Menezes's account. There may also be relevant information that cannot currently be made public because it arose during confidential Board proceedings.
But none of that gives Council an excuse to look the other way. Council appointed Menezes. Council should therefore want to know why its appointee concluded that the institution had failed so profoundly that she could no longer remain part of it. The easiest response would be to find another citizen appointee. It would also be the least satisfactory.
Menezes says her appointment was intended to represent a commitment to including communities historically alienated from policing institutions. She now says that commitment proved to be merely symbolic. If Council responds by simply appointing another person to the same Board without seriously examining the environment Menezes describes, it risks proving her point.
There is also a larger issue that cannot be lost amid the controversy surrounding her departure.A police service board exists to govern. Board members are supposed to scrutinize budgets, question policies, examine results and challenge the institution they oversee when circumstances warrant it. Disagreement is not necessarily evidence of dysfunction. In civilian police governance, vigorous disagreement can sometimes be evidence that oversight is actually taking place.
Menezes alleges that this kind of oversight has been resisted. That accusation strikes directly at the legitimacy of the Board and deserves an answer.
Menezes also says that a complaint concerning her treatment is already before the Inspectorate of Policing and that she intends to file additional complaints. The existence of a complaint does not prove wrongdoing. But when a Council-appointed member files a formal complaint, says the alleged conduct continued, resigns from her position and then calls for the entire Board to be dissolved, Council cannot credibly treat the matter as a routine vacancy.
Hamiltonians deserve to know whether Council was previously aware of these concerns and what, if anything, it did about them. They deserve to know whether Council continues to have full confidence in the governance of the Police Service Board. Most importantly, they deserve to know whether anyone in a position of authority intends to independently examine what happened.
Perhaps such an examination would find Menezes's allegations unsupported. Perhaps other Board members would provide important context that substantially changes the picture. Or perhaps a serious review would identify governance problems that have been allowed to persist. We do not know. And that is precisely why simply replacing Menezes is not an adequate response.
The Hamilton Police Service Board oversees one of the most powerful public institutions in this city. Questions about whether that Board itself is functioning properly cannot be dismissed as an internal personality conflict or quietly buried beneath the administrative process of filling a vacant seat.
Council selected Menezes to help provide civilian governance of policing in Hamilton. She is now leaving with an indictment of the very institution she was appointed to govern.
That should concern every member of Council. A vacancy can be filled quickly. Public confidence cannot.
Before Council asks another Hamiltonian to occupy the chair Dr. Menezes has left behind, it should first find out why she felt she had no choice but to leave it.
The resignation letter can be found within this link: Click here
Her resignation letter makes that response inadequate.
Menezes, a Council-appointed citizen member of the Board since 2023, leaves making extraordinary allegations about the governance and culture of the body responsible for civilian oversight of policing in Hamilton. She says her voice was "systematically marginalized and silenced" and describes procedural exclusion, identity-based mistreatment and what she characterizes as an institutional resistance to dissenting perspectives.
More seriously, she alleges broader failures of governance, transparency and meaningful oversight. She accuses the Board of increasingly functioning as a "rubber stamp" for the police service it is supposed to oversee and has taken the extraordinary step of calling upon Ontario's Solicitor General to dissolve the Board and appoint an independent administrator.
These are allegations, and they should be treated as such. Other members of the Board may strongly dispute Menezes's account. There may also be relevant information that cannot currently be made public because it arose during confidential Board proceedings.
But none of that gives Council an excuse to look the other way. Council appointed Menezes. Council should therefore want to know why its appointee concluded that the institution had failed so profoundly that she could no longer remain part of it. The easiest response would be to find another citizen appointee. It would also be the least satisfactory.
Menezes says her appointment was intended to represent a commitment to including communities historically alienated from policing institutions. She now says that commitment proved to be merely symbolic. If Council responds by simply appointing another person to the same Board without seriously examining the environment Menezes describes, it risks proving her point.
There is also a larger issue that cannot be lost amid the controversy surrounding her departure.A police service board exists to govern. Board members are supposed to scrutinize budgets, question policies, examine results and challenge the institution they oversee when circumstances warrant it. Disagreement is not necessarily evidence of dysfunction. In civilian police governance, vigorous disagreement can sometimes be evidence that oversight is actually taking place.
Menezes alleges that this kind of oversight has been resisted. That accusation strikes directly at the legitimacy of the Board and deserves an answer.
Menezes also says that a complaint concerning her treatment is already before the Inspectorate of Policing and that she intends to file additional complaints. The existence of a complaint does not prove wrongdoing. But when a Council-appointed member files a formal complaint, says the alleged conduct continued, resigns from her position and then calls for the entire Board to be dissolved, Council cannot credibly treat the matter as a routine vacancy.
Hamiltonians deserve to know whether Council was previously aware of these concerns and what, if anything, it did about them. They deserve to know whether Council continues to have full confidence in the governance of the Police Service Board. Most importantly, they deserve to know whether anyone in a position of authority intends to independently examine what happened.
Perhaps such an examination would find Menezes's allegations unsupported. Perhaps other Board members would provide important context that substantially changes the picture. Or perhaps a serious review would identify governance problems that have been allowed to persist. We do not know. And that is precisely why simply replacing Menezes is not an adequate response.
The Hamilton Police Service Board oversees one of the most powerful public institutions in this city. Questions about whether that Board itself is functioning properly cannot be dismissed as an internal personality conflict or quietly buried beneath the administrative process of filling a vacant seat.
Council selected Menezes to help provide civilian governance of policing in Hamilton. She is now leaving with an indictment of the very institution she was appointed to govern.
That should concern every member of Council. A vacancy can be filled quickly. Public confidence cannot.
Before Council asks another Hamiltonian to occupy the chair Dr. Menezes has left behind, it should first find out why she felt she had no choice but to leave it.
The resignation letter can be found within this link: Click here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)