Mayor Horwath on LRT Announcement

Today’s announcement marks another important step forward for Hamilton’s LRT and the future of our city. 

I’m thrilled to see this momentum and what it means for Hamilton as we continue to move this project ahead

.
Beyond faster, more reliable transit, this investment will deliver real benefits for residents - from new housing and economic growth along the corridor, to much-needed upgrades to roads, utilities, and public spaces. It’s about building stronger neighbourhoods, supporting local businesses, and making it easier for people to get where they need to go. 

Through strong partnerships with the Province of Ontario, Metrolinx, and the Government of Canada, we are delivering a project that will have lasting impact across Hamilton for years to come.

Keanin Loomis on LRT Announcement

Statement issued by Keanin Loomis concerning LRT Announcement: 

Today’s LRT announcement marks a meaningful milestone for Hamilton. After years of delays and uncertainty, it’s encouraging to see progress on a project that will shape the future of our city.

LRT has always been about more than transit. It’s about building a stronger, more connected Hamilton. It is a rare opportunity for upper levels of government to fund the replacement of outdated infrastructure, while also helping to grow the assessment base along two of our underperforming main roads.

Today’s progress reflects the persistence of many individuals and organizations across Hamilton who, for over a decade, never gave up on this vision, and I’m proud to have been part of that effort.

I was a steadfast advocate for LRT—championing it at City Council and continuing that work with both the provincial and federal governments to revive the project after its cancellation.

I appreciated the invitation to attend today’s announcement in recognition of those efforts. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend due to a prior commitment advocating on behalf of the Canadian steel industry.

As we move into the next phase, the focus must be on delivery—getting it built on time, on budget and ensuring Hamiltonians are engaged every step of the way. This will require strong coordination with our government partners, disciplined project management and a clear focus on minimizing disruption for residents and businesses.

This is an important moment for Hamilton. Now we need leadership with the experience to deliver.

After the Shock: Will Hamilton Act — or Convene Again?

A 16-year-old is dead. Another teenager stands accused. And the shooting did not happen in a back alley or at the margins—it happened inside Jackson Square, in the heart of Hamilton.

In response, Police Chief Frank Bergen has called a meeting of civic leaders, including Mayor Andrea Horwath, school boards, business leaders, and community agencies. The stated goal: “actionable, tangible next steps.”

It is the right instinct. But Hamilton has seen this instinct before.

What is unfolding now is less a coordinated response than a familiar pattern of fragmented accountability.

Councillor Cameron Kroetsch points to a lack of youth programming in the downtown core. He is not wrong. The loss of federal funding for prevention programs and the absence of a secondary school downtown represent real structural gaps.

Hamilton Centre MPP Robin Lennox, meanwhile, cites underinvestment in housing, poverty reduction, and youth opportunity.

Each of these perspectives contains truth. But taken together, they reveal the central problem: no single actor owns the outcome. 

And that is precisely why these moments so often fail to produce lasting change.

The debate itself—prevention versus enforcement—is also increasingly unhelpful. Hamilton does not face a binary choice. It faces a systems challenge.

Prevention without enforcement lacks immediacy.
Enforcement without prevention lacks durability.

A teenager does not arrive at a moment like this overnight. Nor does a firearm appear in a public mall by accident. These are the endpoints of layered failures—family, social, economic, institutional—and they demand a layered response.

Chief Bergen is right to caution that “more programs” alone will not solve the issue. At the same time, programs do matter—if they are targeted, accessible, and sustained.

Equally, enforcement matters—if it is focused, intelligence-led, and paired with intervention.

What will determine whether this latest effort succeeds is not the meeting itself, but what follows it.

Will there be clear ownership?
Will funding be attached to solutions?
Will outcomes be measured—and reported publicly?

Or will this become another well-intentioned gathering that dissipates into jurisdictional debate?

Hamilton does not need another conversation about youth violence. It needs a coordinated strategy with consequences for failure and accountability for results.

Because what happened at Jackson Square was not just an isolated act.

It was a signal.

The question now is whether the city will treat it as one.

Mayor Andrea Horwath is correct in characterizing this as a complex matter. That complexity demands a response equal in scope and seriousness. To date, such a response has not materialized—one that is coordinated, enterprise-wide, and capable of addressing the issue and others issues at their roots. Until that happens, the conditions that give rise to violence and related challenges will persist.

Before the Ballot: Questions for Hamilton's Next Mayor

The Hamiltonian is launching a new feature titled Before the Ballot: Questions for Hamilton’s Next Mayor.

As the municipal election approaches, we will be putting a consistent series of focused questions to all declared and prospective mayoral candidates. Responses will be published in full, providing readers with a clear and fair basis to compare positions over time. Where a candidate chooses not to respond, that will be noted for transparency.

We believe Hamiltonians are best served when they have the opportunity to consider the views of all those seeking to lead the city.

Our first instalment features potential mayoral candidate Scarlett Gillespie. This set of questions has been circulated to all known potential candidates.

We invite you to read our conversation with Ms. Gillespie.

Jackson Square was once envisioned as a “people place” at the heart of Hamilton’s downtown. Today, it reflects mounting pressures tied to safety concerns, disorder, and declining commercial activity.

Do you believe Hamilton’s downtown—beginning with areas like Jackson Square—requires fundamental transformation? If so, what specific, actionable plan would you lead to restore safety, economic viability, and public confidence? How would your plan be different from others attempts Hamiltonians have seen in the past? 

If you are in support of a concerted effort to transform Hamilton’s s downtown, what do you say to those who would argue that such an effort would take away from other priority issues in other parts of the city?

Ms. Gillespie's reply is as follows:

I think the premise of the question is flawed, because it treats Jackson Square as a failed space that needs to be “fixed,” rather than a complex, functioning part of our downtown that has been misunderstood and mismanaged. 

Jackson Square isn’t just a mall: it’s a civic hub. It connects office workers, small businesses, the library, the farmers’ market, transit, and people seeking shelter or services. It brings together all walks of life in one place. So the issue isn’t whether we “transform” it. The issue is whether we finally take responsibility for how it’s governed.

Right now, the conversation is being framed as if the City can simply redesign or “fix” the site. That’s not accurate. The City of Hamilton owns the land under Jackson Square, but the mall itself is privately controlled through a series of long-term 99-year leases held by Yale Properties, with approximately 56 years remaining on that term. And for years, we’ve had that leverage - and we haven’t used it well. At times, we’ve even considered selling it off entirely; in 2024, Yale Properties tried to renegotiate their lease to add an additional 50 years to their existing 99-year term. They expressed that they would consider purchasing the property (land) all together if given this extension as they represented that they needed to justify and defray the cost of any future capital expenses like renovations.  

So before we talk about transformation, we need to be honest about governance. For decades, the City has had leverage and hasn’t used it effectively.  That means any meaningful transformation requires political will, leverage, and renegotiation - not just vision statements.

Do I believe downtown needs better leadership? Yes. But not the kind of transformation that starts with blaming “disorder” or treating Jackson Square as a security problem which often responds with inadequate surface-level fixes. What people are calling “disorder” is often just visibility of poverty, mental health struggles, and addiction. Jackson Square reflects the realities of our city - it doesn't create them. Real safety comes from activity, inclusion, and design, not displacement.

The real issue is structural: Jackson Square was designed to be insulated; it cuts itself off from the city instead of contributing to it.  . The mall cuts off streets, limiting entrances and pedestrian flow, ultimately disconnecting itself from the surrounding city instead of contributing to the quality of public life in Hamilton. My plan would start there: with structure, not stigma. My plan focuses on that root problem.

First, I would use the City’s position as landowner to renegotiate the terms of that lease in the public interest. Any extension or amendment of the lease needs to be tied to enforceable requirements: opening the building to the street, increasing entrances, activating dead frontages, and restoring access, integration, and therefore walkability within the surrounding neighbourhood.

Second, we stop treating Jackson Square as an isolated problem; the mall is a part of a larger civic district and should be planned together as part of downtown: The FirstOntario Centre, the Convention Centre, the former City Centre lands, and surrounding streets. Right now, we’re redeveloping pieces in isolation, when what we need is a coordinated master plan for the largest employment and civic hub in the city.

Third, we shift the conversation on safety. Safety doesn’t come from over-policing or pushing people out: it comes from activity, visibility, and inclusion. Safety follows activity. That means:

• attracting customers at different times of day (arts, food, services, community uses)
• increased cultural programming
• supporting small, local businesses; not just large anchor tenants
• making space for the communities already there, instead of trying to displace them
• designing spaces people actually want to be in

We’ve known for decades that breaking up superblocks and restoring street-level connections would improve this site, but previous plans were never implemented. If I become Mayor, I would tie approvals and negotiations to actually delivering those changes.

What makes this different from past attempts is simple: accountability. Since the City owns the land, we need to stop negotiating passively like we are a bystander. The city has power it can leverage to improve the quality of life for every Hamiltonian, which it has failed to do thus far. 

Finally, to those who say focusing on downtown takes away from other parts of the city - I would say the opposite is true. A functioning downtown generates economic activity, jobs, and tax revenue that supports the entire city's services and programs. When it works, it supports services and investment across every ward.   Treating Jackson Square as a “special project” instead of critical infrastructure is exactly how we got here.

Hamilton doesn’t need another cosmetic revitalization plan. It needs to use the power it already has - and to stop squandering that power towards the benefit of all Hamiltonians. 

Sincerely,

Scarlett Gillespie

Thank-you Ms. Gillespie for engaging with Hamiltonians in The Hamiltonian. To read a prior piece featuring  Ms. Gillespie, click here. 

The Hamiltonian Analysis: Downtown Strategy — Vision Strong, Execution Uncertain

Assuming you may not have the time to read and consider a 17 page report on how to revitalize Hamilton's downtown, we did the reading  for you. Here are our observations: 

Hamilton’s newly proposed 10-Year Downtown Revitalization Strategy is ambitious, structured, and politically careful. It acknowledges long-standing concerns about the downtown core while attempting to chart a path forward without asking taxpayers for significant new funding upfront. 

But beneath the language of “activation,” “placemaking,” and “coordination,” key questions remain about whether this plan is transformational—or simply another iteration of past efforts.--

Where the Strategy Is Strong

1. Realistic Focus on Early Wins

The plan prioritizes “quick wins” in the first 1–3 years—cleanliness, lighting, maintenance, and visible improvements. This is a practical acknowledgment that perception drives confidence in downtowns. 

2. Cross-Department Coordination (At Least in Theory)

There is a clear recognition that fragmented governance has hindered past efforts. The commitment to a governance review and interim centralized leadership through Economic Development is a step in the right direction. 

3. Activation Strategy Built Around Existing Assets

Initiatives like:

• James Street North festival infrastructure
• King William pedestrianization
•  Farmers’ Market activation
• TD Coliseum entertainment district

…show a strategy built on leveraging what already works rather than reinventing the wheel.

4. Fiscal Restraint Messaging

By relying primarily on reallocating existing resources and a baseline $1 million annual allocation, the City avoids immediate political backlash tied to new spending. 

 Where the Strategy Is Weak

1. No New Money Is Also “No New Capacity

The report repeatedly emphasizes implementation through existing resources. This is the central vulnerability, although an argument can be made that inventing a new Downtown Office will amount to a waste of taxpayer money- as the problem is not at the staff level. 

Downtown Hamilton’s challenges—safety, cleanliness, homelessness, infrastructure decay—are not minor. Reallocating existing budgets risks spreading already thin services even thinner.

2. Governance Review Delayed Until 2027

The strategy acknowledges structural inefficiencies—but delays meaningful reform for up to a year. That raises a fundamental concern: How can a complex, multi-department strategy succeed when the governance model needed to deliver it is still undefined?

3. Heavy Reliance on Pilot Projects

Pilot programs (York Boulevard, parks, wayfinding) dominate the early action plan.

Pilots are useful—but Hamilton has piloted downtown revitalization ideas for over a decade. The concern is whether this becomes another cycle of testing without scaling.

4. Vague Accountability Metrics

While the report references “measurement frameworks” and annual updates, it lacks:

•  Specific KPIs
•  Defined targets
•  Timelines tied to outcomes (not just actions)
• Without these, Council and the public will struggle to measure success objectively.

5. Avoidance of Root Issues

The strategy focuses heavily on physical space and activation—but is notably cautious around:

•  Public safety realities
•  Mental health and addiction impacts
• *Chronic homelessness

These are acknowledged indirectly but not confronted as central drivers of downtown decline.

6. Historical Context Raises Red Flags

The report itself notes that past renewal efforts (1970s–1980s) are now aging and underperforming. This underscores a deeper concern: Hamilton has had “revitalization strategies” before—why will this one be different?

 Key Questions Councillors Should Be Asking

Governance & Accountability

•  Who is ultimately accountable for results if multiple departments are involved?
•  Why is the governance review not completed before implementation begins?
•  What happens if departments fail to align?

Financial Reality

•  Is $1 million annually sufficient for a city the size of Hamilton?
• What services are being deprioritized to fund this?
•  When will Council see the first request for additional funding?

Measurement & Transparency

What are the specific, measurable targets for:

•    Cleanliness?
•    Safety perception?
•    Business occupancy?
•    Foot traffic?

What constitutes failure—and what is the corrective mechanism?

Execution Risk

•  How many past downtown strategies relied on “pilot projects” that never scaled?
•  What guarantees exist that successful pilots will be permanently funded?

Public Safety & Social Conditions

•  How does this strategy integrate with homelessness, addiction, and mental health strategies?
•  Can “activation” succeed without first stabilizing these underlying conditions?

Economic Impact

•  What is the expected ROI of this strategy?
• How will success be measured in terms of private investment and tax base growth?

Equity Across the City

• If this becomes a model for other neighbourhoods, how will resources be distributed?
•  Will downtown continue to receive disproportionate focus?

Bottom Line

This strategy is not without merit—it is structured, grounded in consultation, and politically pragmatic.

But it is also cautious to a fault.

Hamilton is not suffering from a lack of plans. It is suffering from a lack of execution, coordination, and sustained investment. It is blind to the brand and dosage of leadership that is required to transform. 

Unless Council addresses those structural gaps head-on and understands the brand of leadership required  and dosage, this strategy risks becoming what many before it have been:

A well-written document… that doesn’t fundamentally change outcomes.

Hamilton at a Crossroads: Why Farmland Must Not Be the Price of Growth

Hamilton is once again being pulled into a familiar and consequential battle — one that will define not only how the city grows, but what kind of city it ultimately becomes.

At the center of the latest dispute is a high-stakes hearing before the Ontario Land Tribunal, where developers are pushing to expand Hamilton’s urban boundary by nearly 1,700 hectares of rural land. Their vision: tens of thousands of new homes, sprawling outward into farmland that has long been part of the region’s agricultural backbone.

The city, to its credit, is holding the line — at least for now.

Hamilton’s legal position is clear: no expansion is necessary. Instead, the city continues to advocate for a fixed boundary approach, focusing growth inward through intensification, smarter land use, and more efficient infrastructure planning. 

This is not simply a planning debate. It is a defining test of priorities.

The Illusion of “Necessary” Expansion

Developers argue that expansion is essential to meet housing demand, projecting over 50,000 units and more than 150,000 residents across proposed developments like Elfrida. On the surface, that sounds like a solution to the housing crisis.

But it isn’t.

What is being proposed is not a new model of affordability or sustainable housing — it is a continuation of the same low-density, car-dependent growth pattern that has driven costs higher and infrastructure deeper into deficit for decades. 

Even the city’s own analysis suggests that these projections rely on outdated assumptions — particularly the continued dominance of single-detached housing. That model is increasingly incompatible with modern economic realities, environmental constraints, and shifting demographic needs.

Simply put: building outward is not the same as building smart.

The True Cost of Sprawl

Every hectare of farmland lost is not just a change in land use — it is a permanent loss.

Prime agricultural land, once developed, is gone forever. In a time of growing food insecurity, climate instability, and supply chain vulnerability, that should give policymakers pause.

But the cost goes further.

Urban expansion brings with it a cascade of infrastructure demands: roads, sewers, transit, emergency services — all stretched further and funded by taxpayers. Residents in newer, low-density areas often pay less than the true cost of servicing those communities, leaving existing urban taxpayers to subsidize the gap.

And then there is the environmental toll. 

More pavement means more runoff, more strain on stormwater systems, and increased flood risk — concerns already raised by local residents near proposed expansion zones. The pattern is well known: sprawl amplifies the very infrastructure and climate challenges municipalities are struggling to manage.

A Better Path Already Exists

Hamilton has already made its choice — twice.

In 2021, and again under a subsequent council, the city embraced a fixed urban boundary, aligning itself with the widely supported “Stop Sprawl” movement. That decision was rooted in a forward-looking strategy: intensify where infrastructure already exists, revitalize underused land, and build complete communities within the current footprint.

This is not anti-growth.

It is pro-responsible growth.

Cities across North America are increasingly recognizing that density — when done well — supports affordability, vibrancy, and long-term fiscal sustainability. Hamilton has the opportunity to be part of that shift rather than reverting to outdated expansion models.

The Line That Must Hold

Even some local leaders acknowledge the risks. Councillor Mark Tadeson has pointed out that certain proposals amount to “leapfrogging” development — bypassing more appropriate, less disruptive areas closer to the existing boundary. That observation underscores a critical point: this is not a binary choice between growth and no growth.

It is a choice between disciplined, strategic development and unchecked sprawl. 

Hamilton stands at a crossroads. The decisions made through this tribunal process will reverberate for generations — shaping the city’s landscape, economy, and environmental resilience.

Growth is necessary. Housing is urgent.

But sacrificing irreplaceable farmland is neither necessary nor wise.

If Hamilton is serious about its future, the line it drew around its urban boundary must not just be defended — it must be respected.