Before the Ballot- With Ward 14 Candidate Kojo Damptey

Welcome to this instalment of Before the Ballot featuring Ward 14 Candidate Kojo Damptey

What motivated you to run for council, and why do you believe now is the right time for new leadership in your ward?

As a resident of Ward 14, I see the continuous lack of attention to civic governance, I see the lack of proactive long-term planning for the Ward and the city, I see the lack of urgency to address long-standing issues. Residents across our city are facing acute, unprecedented economic, social, and municipal challenges. The response we see from Council is talking about the challenges ad nauseam without bringing forward tangible solutions and actions. For example, on the Mountain, we are experiencing an increase in youth crimes/violence. Critical questions would be: what strategies are the City, school boards and young people developing to tackle this issue? How are we engaging with parents, youth-led groups, and other interested parties to come up with an action plan to work with youth?

As one of the candidates in the 2022 election, I talked about establishing a youth Council from the high schools in Ward 14 to serve as a conduit for understanding youth concerns. These are some of the ideas, actions, and strategies we need from Councillors to create a city where youth feel they are heard, valued, and are part of the solutions.

From 2019 to 2021, I worked diligently with the City of Hamilton staff to develop Hamilton’s first Community Safety and Well-Being Plan (this plan is mandated by the Provincial government). The plan highlighted the need for a robust coordinated plan to address the following concerns: hate crimes, violence/crime, substance use, mental health stigma, access to income, and homelessness. Five years later, we are still dealing with these issues on a magnified scope. This is another example of the lack of urgency in addressing long standing issues.

I highlight these two examples to point out that we need people on Council who can bring forward ideas, solutions, strategies, and plans that address the overall governance of property taxes, develop sound policy decisions, and represent residents with truth, integrity, and accountability.

With over 10 years of executive leadership experience managing operational budgets and departments, I would bring a wealth of budgeting expertise to ensure that the city’s financial and administrative resources are spent efficiently for residents.

One of the important roles of a Councillor that most people don't pay attention to is understanding policy, implementing it, and making policy decisions that require community engagement with residents, collaboration with other Councillors, and working with city staff. One of the initiatives I am proud of is working with community organizations, health experts, and others to restructure Hamilton’s Board of Health, which was adopted by Council unanimously in 2025.

I am a civic leader, change-maker, community builder, and educator; these skills are what are needed at Council to offer solutions to the challenges we all experience and face.

Every ward has its own unique challenges. What do you believe are the top three issues facing residents in your ward today, and how would you address them?

Inclusive Financial Policy - With unprecedented financial pressures facing families and seniors in Ward 14, city policy and decisions should value interdependence and connectivity. Resilient cities focus on balancing inclusive financial policies that provide services for residents while taking financial strain into account. As City Councillor, I will reduce the tax impact on seniors (+65) by expanding and modernizing the hardship & seniors deferral program. I propose increasing the income threshold from $45,000 ($236 credit) to $65,000. We know seniors are on fixed incomes and the financial strain they are going through needs to be addressed through material policies that allow them to thrive in their homes without undue stress.

Building a sense of Community & Participatory Local Governance - One of the problems I see with Hamilton municipal politics, is that Councillors don’t create spaces for resident input on local Ward decisions. In Ward 14, if you are not on the mailing list of the Councillor’s office you are most likely to miss out on meetings and other information. Ward 14 comprises 9 neighbourhoods: Carpenter, Falkirk, Fessenden, Gilbert, Gilkson Gurnett, Westcliffe, Mountview, and Scenic Woods. While each neighbourhood thrives in solitude, there isn't a sense of collaboration among neighbourhoods and sharing of information among residents across neighbourhoods. I would address this concern by (1) introducing volunteer neighbourhood councils (made up of Ward 14 residents) in all neighbourhoods as a way to build civic capacity and engagement across the Ward, (2) establish a Ward 14 Community Volunteer Council made up of Ward 14 residents to inform City policy and budget decisions at Council and budgeting for Ward 14 projects. These volunteer councils will be a space for resident feedback and concerns.

Transparency at City Hall, Crumbling Infrastructure, Speeding, & Parking - Ward 14 residents are exhausted with the constant mishaps at City Hall - cyberattack, Tiffany debacle, aging infrastructure, and many more. They see these mishaps as taking away from Ward and city improvements for streets, parks, rec centres, libraries, etc. When it comes to street safety, families are concerned about continuous speeding on neighbourhood streets, and parking issues are also top of mind for residents. In 2021, when former Councillor Whitehead was on leave, I worked with City staff to host an online Complete Safe Street meeting. Since then, the Complete Safe Streets plan has slowly been adopted. I will accelerate the street safety enhancements in the Ward 14 Complete Streets Plan. This issue goes back to my concerns about the lack of information presented to residents and how residents are involved in street safety enhancements. This is why I believe it is crucial to have a Councillor who understands community engagement as a way to hear from residents, get feedback, and be accountable to residents.

Municipal government often requires balancing competing interests and difficult budget decisions. How would you approach making tough decisions at City Hall?

I believe the missing ingredient in municipal governance in Hamilton is meaningful community engagement with residents that leads to meaningful action for residents. For example, how many Councillors had town halls before the recent budget for the City? Yes, they may have received several emails from residents stating their displeasure with the tax increase. But did they actually hear from residents in a public setting where consensus is built between residents and the Councillor? This rarely happens. This leads to Councillors blaming each other and the Mayor for tax increases, while they aren’t fulfilling their duty to offer solutions in collaboration with residents, Council colleagues, and city staff.

As I mentioned earlier, my approach to municipal governance is to center community engagement as a space for input, debate, feedback, and implementation TOGETHER. I would hold community town halls in all Ward 14 neighbourhoods to hear from residents about what priorities should inform the budget. Decisions made at these town halls will be integrated into suggestions from city staff and other Councillors. With ample resident feedback and my experience running departments, I will make the difficult decisions regarding financial redundancies.

One idea I would really pursue is holding town halls with other Mountain Councillors (Wards 6, 7, & 8) to discuss the budget and other city concerns. This is a proactive approach to municipal governance that integrates residents into decision-making.

What experience, skills, or perspective do you bring that distinguishes you from other candidates seeking the same council seat?

My work as a change-maker, community builder, civic leader, musician, and educator provides a breadth and depth of knowledge and skills required to take on the role of City Councillor. Now more than ever, we need multi-talented individuals who can juggle the financial, social, economic, and political pressures facing Hamilton. Hamilton and Ward 14 deserve leaders who are willing to roll up their sleeves and deliver for the residents of Hamilton. No more complaining ad nauseam, it is time for solutions and actions and that is what I will bring to Council.

Changing policy at City Hall- Worked with community and health experts to restructure the Board of Health.  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/board-of-health-reform-1.7085021

One of the platform points I proposed in 2022 was restructuring Hamilton’s Board of Health to include health experts to govern Hamilton Public Health, instead of having 15 Councillors and a Mayor who had no background in health. In 2025, City Council unanimously voted to restructure the Board of Health to include 6 Councillors and 6 community health experts.

From 2019 to 2021, I worked diligently with the City of Hamilton to develop Hamilton’s first Community Safety and Well-Being Plan (this plan is mandated by the Provincial government). The plan highlighted the need for a robust coordinated plan to address the following concerns; hate crimes, violence/crime, substance use, mental health stigma, access to income, and homelessness.

Addressing community & public safety in Hamilton- Worked with the community to develop an independent online platform for reporting hate crimes/incidents in Hamilton.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2019, Hamilton had the highest number of hate crimes per capita in the whole country. As the former executive of a not-for-profit organization, I asked Hamilton Council to take a severe, proactive approach to tackle hate in Hamilton. I met with Members of the Provincial Parliament to discuss these threats. A few Members of the Provincial Parliament understood the dire need to address the potential threat of hate, but wouldn't bring forward any legislation to take this issue head-on. So the only option was to come up with a community response; through research and working with McMaster faculty, we developed an independent user-friendly community platform for reporting hate (www.wesupporthamilton.ca)

Showing up for Mountain Residents- Growing up in Ghana, my parents would say, “Every human being is born into a community; thus, you have to be involved in your community.”- An individual is lost without his/her/their community. This philosophy has shaped my civic participation and civic duty in Hamilton. During the COVID-19 pandemic, I founded the Mountain Mutual Aid Network (MMAN) with fellow Ward 14 residents. The Mountain Mutual Aid Network (MMAN) collected and redistributed donations from caring neighbours to those who lacked systemic support. The Network ran out of Saint Andrew’s United Church and provided food and hygiene products to over 100 Mountain residents.  Volunteered with the Community Fridge in the Gilkson neighbourhood and the community pantry at St Andrew’s United Church. 

What is the best way for voters to contact you and/or learn more about you?

Anyone can email me at kojoforward14@gmail.com, they can also find us on social media with the handle @kojoforward14 (Facebook, Instagram, TikTok).

Thank-you Kojo for engaging with Hamiltonians in The Hamiltonian!

Are Hamiltonians Being Served?

As Hamilton approaches another municipal election cycle, it is easy to focus solely on personalities — the mayor, councillors, campaign messaging, and political narratives. However, voters should focus just as carefully, if not more so, on results.

In this special analysis, The Hamiltonian examines how Hamilton compares to several comparable Ontario municipalities across key measures including infrastructure, taxation, public confidence, downtown conditions, housing delivery, governance, and overall execution. The record matters, and it should inform decisions at the ballot box.

For years, Hamilton has positioned itself as a city on the rise — a community poised for transformation, investment, intensification, and economic growth. Yet when Hamilton is measured against comparable Ontario municipalities, a more concerning picture emerges: a city increasingly struggling with execution, transparency, infrastructure performance, downtown conditions, safety, housing delivery, and public confidence. This is not a matter of political ideology. It is a matter of measurable outcomes.

Hamilton residents now carry one of the heavier urban tax burdens in Ontario while continuing to confront deteriorating roads, visible disorder in the downtown core, rising infrastructure deficits, controversial governance decisions, sluggish project delivery, gun violence concerns, and persistent questions surrounding fiscal discipline and accountability.

The issue is no longer whether Hamilton faces challenges. Every municipality does. The more important question is whether Hamilton is keeping pace with comparable cities facing many of the same pressures.

Increasingly, the evidence suggests it is not.

Hamilton is often compared either to Toronto — a global city with vastly different scale and resources — or to municipalities lacking Hamilton’s urban complexity. More appropriate comparator cities include:

• London
• Kitchener
• Waterloo
• Windsor
• Oshawa
• Mississauga
• Burlington

These municipalities face many of the same pressures:
• aging infrastructure,
• housing growth targets,
• downtown revitalization challenges,
• policing and social service pressures,
• transit demands,
• and economic transition pressures.

Yet several of these municipalities appear to be outperforming Hamilton in key areas that directly affect residents’ quality of life.

Hamilton’s infrastructure deficit has become one of the defining policy failures of the modern city. Road conditions remain a constant source of public frustration. Sidewalk deterioration is widespread. Flooding vulnerabilities continue to expose weaknesses in stormwater systems. Recreation infrastructure renewal remains uneven, while major capital projects frequently face delays, redesign controversies, or escalating costs.

Comparable municipalities also face infrastructure pressures, yet several appear to execute renewal projects with greater consistency and less dysfunction. Cities such as Mississauga and Burlington have generally maintained stronger public confidence in core municipal service delivery while avoiding the level of civic frustration increasingly evident in Hamilton.

Meanwhile, Hamilton taxpayers continue to hear a recurring message: there is never enough money. Yet residential property taxes continue to climb aggressively. That disconnect is becoming increasingly difficult for residents to reconcile.

Hamilton homeowners have experienced repeated tax increases while simultaneously watching visible conditions deteriorate in parts of the city. Increasingly, residents are asking a fundamental question:

Where is the return on investment?

In many neighbourhoods, citizens point to:
• deteriorating roads,
• rising encampment pressures,
• public safety concerns,
• downtown disorder,
• lengthy project timelines,
• inconsistent bylaw enforcement,
• and declining public trust in City Hall decision-making.

This is where Hamilton’s challenge becomes particularly serious. A city can survive high taxes if residents believe services are improving. A city can survive difficult circumstances if residents trust leadership is effectively managing them. However, when taxes rise while public confidence declines, the political and civic consequences become significant.

Perhaps nowhere is the comparison more striking than in downtown Hamilton.

For decades, civic leaders have spoken about downtown revitalization as though it were perpetually just around the corner. Yet many residents and business owners increasingly describe the downtown core using terms such as unsafe, unpredictable, fragmented, and unmanaged. A phrase heard with growing frequency is: “I would not go downtown after dark.”

Encampments, open drug use, vacant storefronts, social disorder, infrastructure neglect, and public safety concerns have significantly altered public perceptions of the core- and the tragic killings.

Other Ontario cities also face homelessness and addiction crises. However, several comparator municipalities have maintained stronger perceptions of order, cleanliness, predictability, and commercial confidence within their downtowns.

Cities such as Kitchener and London continue to advance downtown intensification, technology-sector attraction, and public realm improvements with fewer visible signs of systemic paralysis. Hamilton’s downtown, by contrast, increasingly feels like a city struggling to maintain basic civic equilibrium.

Hamilton also faces growing criticism surrounding housing delivery timelines and development uncertainty. Developers, residents, and industry observers have repeatedly raised concerns regarding approval delays, policy unpredictability, planning friction, appeals, and shifting political direction.

This matters economically. Cities perceived as difficult, unpredictable, or politically unstable risk losing investment momentum to competing municipalities. Increasingly, Hamilton’s reputation within policy, development, and civic circles is becoming associated with conflict, delay, and inconsistency.

Perhaps the most damaging issue facing Hamilton is not infrastructure or taxation. It is trust.

Hamilton has faced repeated criticism surrounding transparency, disclosure practices, communication controversies, and public accountability. In today’s edition of The Hamiltonian, readers will also find coverage regarding the City’s continued refusal to disclose to the water workers’ union and Hamilton taxpayers the full costs associated with managing the water workers strike. That refusal has now triggered additional proceedings before the Information and Privacy Commissioner — resulting in yet more taxpayer-funded legal and administrative costs.

Ultimately, Hamilton taxpayers continue to pay for both the original issue and the resulting disputes surrounding disclosure.

The growing perception among some residents is that information too often emerges reluctantly rather than proactively. History has demonstrated that controversies involving withheld or delayed information — including the Red Hill Valley Parkway Inquiry and the sewage spill controversy — can carry serious political consequences.

Modern municipal governance depends heavily on legitimacy and public confidence. When residents begin to believe decisions are opaque, selectively communicated, politically managed, or shielded from scrutiny, cynicism accelerates rapidly. Cynicism, once entrenched, is difficult to reverse.

Hamilton increasingly risks becoming known not merely for governance problems, but for defensiveness surrounding governance problems.

Hamilton’s central challenge may ultimately be summarized in one word: Execution.

The city does not lack studies.
It does not lack strategies.
It does not lack consultants.
It does not lack vision statements.
It does not lack plans.

Hamilton has plans for nearly everything.

What residents increasingly question is whether City Hall can consistently execute at the level taxpayers should reasonably expect.

For example, while City Manager Marnie Cluckie has publicly indicated progress on customer service improvements, residents still do not have access to a public-facing performance dashboard, clearly defined service metrics, or a formalized public performance contract tied to executive accountability.

Comparable municipalities have generally demonstrated stronger performance in:
• project completion,
• downtown management,
• housing facilitation,
• fiscal predictability,
• communications,
• and civic confidence.

Hamilton, meanwhile, often appears trapped in a cycle of:
study,
delay,
controversy,
revision,
reassessment,
and political fragmentation.

Over time, that cycle erodes confidence not only in elected officials, but in the institution itself.

Significant municipal mismanagement is not beyond Hamilton’s experience. The cyberattack that occurred under the watch of the current council resulted in the shutdown of critical municipal systems, widespread operational disruption, and substantial financial costs to taxpayers. The incident became particularly concerning when the City’s own insurance provider reportedly declined coverage, citing failures related to appropriate system protection and verification protocols.

Hamilton still possesses enormous strengths. Its geography remains strategic. Its healthcare and education sectors remain major assets. Its arts and culture community is vibrant. Its industrial and logistics advantages remain significant. Its neighbourhood character continues to be deeply valued.

Most importantly, Hamiltonians themselves remain resilient, engaged, and passionate about the future of their city. But civic goodwill is not unlimited. The danger facing Hamilton is not sudden collapse.

The danger is normalization.

Normalization of deteriorating standards.
Normalization of disorder.
Normalization of delays.
Normalization of weak accountability.
Normalization of rising taxes paired with declining public confidence.

Cities rarely decline all at once. More often, they gradually condition residents to expect less. Hamilton does not require perfection. But it does require measurable improvement.

Residents deserve:
• clearer accountability,
• stronger execution,
• greater transparency,
• improved fiscal discipline,
• safer and more predictable public spaces,
• and infrastructure performance that reflects the taxes they pay.

The question facing Hamilton is no longer whether change is needed. The question is whether the city’s political and administrative culture is prepared to confront the scale of change required.

Because when Hamilton is measured against comparable Ontario municipalities, the uncomfortable reality is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore:

Too often, Hamilton is not leading the pack. It is struggling to keep up. 

Transparency Denied: Union Appeals City’s Refusal to Disclose Water Strike Costs

For months, questions surrounding the true financial impact of Hamilton’s water workers strike have lingered without meaningful public answers. Now, the matter is escalating further.

The Hamiltonian has learned that the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 772 (IUOE) has formally appealed the City of Hamilton’s refusal to disclose records related to strike costs to Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC).

In an update provided to The Hamiltonian this week, IUOE Business Manager Greg Hoath confirmed:

“The union counsel has sent our formal appeal to the IPC in early May.”

The statement marks the latest development in an ongoing dispute over public transparency and accountability tied to one of Hamilton’s most significant labour disruptions in recent years.

Earlier correspondence reviewed by The Hamiltonian showed the union had received an access decision from the City under FOI #26-052. Following that decision, the union indicated it intended to challenge the refusal through the IPC process.

At issue is a straightforward but important public-interest question: how much did the strike actually cost Hamilton taxpayers?

Despite repeated public discussion about operational pressures, emergency measures, management responses, and broader impacts during the strike, the City has thus far resisted disclosing the underlying financial details being sought through the freedom-of-information process.

That refusal raises legitimate concerns.

Municipal governments frequently speak about transparency, accountability, and public trust. Yet those principles become most important precisely when the information requested may be politically uncomfortable or financially sensitive.

Taxpayers fund municipal operations. Taxpayers absorb the consequences of labour disputes. Taxpayers therefore have a reasonable expectation to understand the financial implications of major municipal events — particularly one involving essential infrastructure and public services. The city's ongoing denial will not play well in an election year where taxpayers want to know how their money is spent. 

The issue extends beyond labour relations.

This is fundamentally about whether the public can meaningfully evaluate decisions made by municipal leadership during a major civic disruption. Without disclosure, residents are left to speculate about:
• overtime expenditures,
• contingency staffing costs,
• external contractor expenses,
• operational impacts,
• legal costs,
• and the broader fiscal consequences associated with the strike response.

When governments withhold this type of information, public confidence can erode quickly. The Red Hill Expressway issue and "Sewagegate" serve as stark reminders of how denying information to Hamilton residents, can have a disastrous impact at the polls.  

Freedom-of-information legislation exists specifically to prevent governments from becoming the sole gatekeepers of politically consequential information. While there are legitimate exemptions under Ontario’s access laws, blanket resistance to disclosure involving taxpayer expenditures inevitably invites scrutiny.

The City may ultimately argue that portions of the requested records fall within statutory exemptions. However, the IPC appeal process will now test whether those exemptions were applied appropriately — or too broadly.

Importantly, this matter is no longer merely a political disagreement or media inquiry. It has now entered a formal oversight process before Ontario’s independent privacy and access watchdog.

That development matters. The outcome could establish an important precedent regarding how far municipalities can go in shielding labour-dispute-related financial information from public view.

For Hamilton residents, the broader principle remains clear: transparency should not depend on whether disclosure is convenient; something you may wish to consider when determining who you will cast your vote for. 

Public trust is strengthened when governments provide information willingly — not only when compelled through appeals and oversight mechanisms.

The Hamiltonian will continue following the IPC appeal process and any future rulings or disclosures connected to FOI #26-052.

Topics covered to date in our “Before the Ballot: A Candidate’s Guide” series.

Based on the positive feedback The Hamiltonian has been receiving from readers — particularly individuals considering or running for public office for the first time — we are pleased to provide the following summary of topics covered to date in our “Before the Ballot: A Candidate’s Guide” series.

Designed to inform, encourage, and prepare prospective candidates for the realities of municipal campaigning and public service, the series continues to explore the practical, strategic, and personal dimensions of seeking elected office in Hamilton.

As the municipal election season progresses, The Hamiltonian will continue expanding this series with additional insights, interviews, and guidance for both candidates and voters alike.

Click on the topics below to access each article:

Build a Winning Ground Game

Building a Credible Platform

The Campaign Team

Fundraising

Door to Door Canvassing

The Hamiltonian- More Than Coverage

Before the Ballot- Candidate's Guide- Door to Door canvassing

If you are a serious candidate in the upcoming election, it is time to armour up. The Hamiltonian's series, Before the Ballot- the Candidate's Guide offers insights that will optimize your chances of being the next Mayor, Councillor or School Trustee. In this edition, we tackle door to door canvassing.

For all the changes in modern campaigning, one reality remains remarkably consistent in municipal politics: voters still respond to direct, personal contact. In Hamilton, where neighbourhood identity and local relationships carry significant weight, door-to-door canvassing remains one of the most effective tools a campaign can use. But successful canvassing is not about talking the most. It is about listening well, staying disciplined, and leaving a positive impression.

Remember the purpose of canvassing. The goal is not to “win” every conversation. The goal is to:
– introduce the candidate,
– identify supporters,
– understand voter concerns,
– and build familiarity and trust.
Candidates who approach canvassing as a performance often miss the most important part: hearing what residents are actually saying.

Start with a clear, respectful introduction.
The opening matters. Keep it simple:
– who you are,
– what office you are seeking,
– and why you are there.
Avoid launching immediately into a speech or platform summary. Most voters decide within seconds whether the interaction feels respectful and genuine.

Ask questions early.
Strong canvassers speak less than they listen. A simple question such as: “What issues matter most to you right now?” often produces far more valuable information than a long policy explanation. Voters remember candidates who appeared interested in their concerns—not just in delivering talking points.

Keep answers concise. When residents raise issues, respond clearly and directly. Avoid overexplaining or trying to solve every problem at the doorstep.
Municipal voters generally appreciate candidates who:
– answer honestly,
– stay grounded,
– and avoid sounding rehearsed.
Short, focused responses tend to be more persuasive than lengthy ones.

Avoid arguing. Not every voter will support you. Some may strongly disagree with your views or already support another candidate. Do not get drawn into confrontational exchanges. Respectful disagreement handled calmly often leaves a better impression than trying to “win” the argument. A simple: “I appreciate your  perspective. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me.” is often the best way to end an unproductive conversation.

Do not overpromise. One of the most damaging habits in municipal campaigning is making commitments simply to satisfy the moment. Voters are increasingly sensitive to promises that sound unrealistic or beyond municipal authority. If you do not know the answer to a question, it is entirely acceptable to say “That’s something I’d want to look into more carefully.” Honesty is usually more credible than improvisation.

Respect time and boundaries. Some residents want detailed discussions. Others do not. Strong canvassers recognize the difference quickly.
If someone appears rushed or uninterested:
– thank them politely,
– leave literature if appropriate,
– and move on.
Persistence should never become pressure.

Pay attention to tone and body language.
Canvassing is not only about words. Voters often respond to:
– eye contact,
– attentiveness,
– calm energy,
– and professionalism.
A candidate who appears rushed, distracted, or overly aggressive can undermine their own message regardless of what they say.

Use literature properly. Campaign literature should support the conversation, not replace it. A clean, readable handout with:
– the candidate’s name,
– core priorities,
– and contact information
is usually sufficient. Overly dense or cluttered material is less likely to be retained

Track what you learn. Every conversation provides useful information:
– supporter identification,
– recurring issues,
– neighbourhood concerns,
– or potential volunteers.
Campaigns that systematically record and use this information gain a major strategic advantage later in the race.

Stay consistent over time.
Canvassing effectiveness compounds through repetition. Voters who see a candidate multiple times—in person, online, and in the community—begin forming familiarity and trust. Consistency often matters more than intensity.

A final note

Municipal campaigns remain deeply personal. Long after policy details blur together, voters often remember how a candidate made them feel at the door. The strongest canvassers are not necessarily the most polished speakers. They are usually the candidates who appeared:
– respectful,
– informed,
– approachable,
– and genuinely interested in the community they hope to represent.

In Hamilton’s municipal environment, that kind of connection still matters enormously.

Enjoying this series, or know of someone who would benefit from this article? Share it with them. It's as easy as clicking the envelope icon near the comments field below. 

The Gloves Are Off- Gillespie vs. Horwath

The gloves appear to be off as Mayoral candidate Scarlett Gillespie didn't hold back in a Facebook post in which she alleges that Mayor Andrea Horwath is "virtue signalling" disingenuously. 

Scarlett Gillespie’s decision to publicly and directly accuse Mayor Andrea Horwath of “virtue signalling” marks a noticeable escalation in the tone of Hamilton’s emerging mayoral race. Up until now, much of the pre-campaign atmosphere has been relatively measured, with candidates carefully positioning themselves around affordability, public safety, infrastructure, and trust in government. Gillespie’s remarks suggest at least one challenger may be prepared to move beyond policy disagreements and into more confrontational political territory.

The political impact of this could cut both ways. For some voters frustrated with what they perceive as symbolic politics or carefully managed messaging from City Hall, Gillespie’s comments may resonate as blunt authenticity and a willingness to challenge the incumbent directly. In an era where many voters say they are tired of scripted political language, sharp criticism can sometimes energize supporters looking for a candidate willing to “say what others won’t.”

At the same time, aggressive attacks carry risk. Hamilton voters have historically shown an appreciation for candidates who remain composed and solutions-focused, particularly at the municipal level where residents often prioritize practical leadership over ideological conflict. If the campaign becomes overly personal or divisive, some voters may view it as unnecessary negativity rather than constructive accountability.

What this moment likely signals most clearly is that the race may become far more competitive — and far more combative — than many initially expected. If challengers believe Mayor Horwath is politically vulnerable, voters can expect sharper contrasts, tougher scrutiny, and a campaign environment where narrative and perception may matter just as much as policy itself.

 While Ms. Horwath has yet to register to run again for Mayor, we expect her to at some point.

The Hamiltonian has reached out to the Mayor for comment on Ms. Gillespie's statement and we will publish the Mayor's comment in full, should she provide one.