Opinion:Beemer Park: Compassion and Public Safety Must Coexist By Adam Oldfield

Beemer Park: Compassion and Public Safety Must Coexist
By Adam Oldfield

For residents living around J.C. Beemer Park, the return of tents is not an isolated incident. It is the return of a familiar cycle. Complaints are made, enforcement and cleanups follow, the situation improves for a short time, and then the same concerns come back.

Let me be clear about where I am writing from. I am not running for Hamilton City Council. I have already tried the political game in 2022, and while political labels apparently have a longer shelf life than most campaign signs, I have no plans to put my name on a ballot again. That does not mean I intend to stop speaking up.

I am a local resident, business owner and employer. I live here, work here and employ people here. My family, my employees and my neighbours use the same parks, sidewalks and public spaces as everyone else. I have both a personal and a professional stake in making Hamilton's North End safer, stronger and more welcoming.

Beemer Park remains a community concern

The concerns surrounding Beemer Park are not new. In September 2025, residents raised serious questions about violence, threatening behaviour, reported open drug use and the loss of safe access to the park and its public washrooms.

Between September 8 and September 10, 2025, the City reported issuing 10 immediate trespass notices and coordinating several cleanups at J.C. Beemer and Tweedsmuir parks. Residents reported that people, possessions and garbage returned shortly afterward. Hamilton Police later advised that special attention had been assigned to patrol and beat officers, and that daily checks and enforcement would take place.

Roughly ten months later, the tents and the same community concerns have returned.

Residents should not have to wait for another serious assault, stabbing or death before meaningful action is taken. Families should not have to avoid a public park. Parents and grandparents should not have to wonder whether it is safe to bring children into a public space. People should be able to walk through their own neighbourhood and use a public washroom without feeling threatened.

These are not unreasonable expectations.

Compassion and public safety must coexist

This is not about pretending that homelessness, mental illness and addiction can be solved by moving people somewhere else. People living in those circumstances need housing, treatment, health care and meaningful support.

But compassion cannot mean surrendering public spaces, or expecting residents to tolerate threatening and dangerous behaviour. We should not have to choose between supporting vulnerable people and protecting families, children, businesses and neighbourhood residents.

A responsible city must be capable of doing both.

The City of Hamilton is responsible for maintaining safe, clean and accessible public spaces. The Province plays a central role in mental health care, addiction treatment, hospitals, supportive housing and social services. The federal government provides housing and homelessness funding while shaping important parts of Canada's criminal justice and drug policy framework.

That is why this can no longer be treated as someone else's responsibility.

Residents need action, not another announcement

Hamilton residents hear regularly about strategies, task forces, partnerships and funding. What we need now are answers.

What immediate action is being taken at Beemer Park? How will safe access to the park, the public washrooms, the children's areas and the surrounding pathways be maintained? What outreach, treatment, housing and mental health resources are actually available today? What happened to the daily checks and enforcement measures discussed in September 2025? What measurable results are the various task forces producing? How are the municipal, provincial and federal governments working together, and who is ultimately accountable for coordinating the response?

A task force should be measured by what it accomplishes, not by how many meetings it holds.

I will keep fighting for this neighbourhood

I am not seeking elected office, but I am not stepping away from my responsibility as a neighbour either.

I will continue to raise concerns, ask difficult questions and press elected officials at every level of government for answers. I will continue supporting responsible solutions that combine compassion, treatment, housing and public safety.

Most importantly, I will continue to live, employ and invest in Hamilton while working alongside my neighbours to make the North End and the broader Ward 3 community better.

You do not need to be a politician to care about your city. You do not need your name on a ballot to demand accountability. You certainly do not need a campaign sign to stand up for your neighbourhood.

Hamilton is our home. Beemer Park belongs to the entire community, and we should not accept losing it again.

Adam Oldfield is a Hamilton resident and president of Vacu-Man Furnace and Duct Cleaning, a family owned Hamilton business. He is a past president of the Rotary Club of Hamilton and teaches at Mohawk College. He previously ran for Hamilton City Council and is not a candidate in the 2026 municipal election, but remains committed to advocating for safer, stronger neighbourhoods.

The Hamiltonian asks Hamiltonians to Rally Around Four-Year-Old Eli

A local family is facing an unimaginable journey after four-year-old Eli was diagnosed with Grade 4 glioma, an aggressive form of brain cancer. Eli is currently undergoing intensive radiation treatments as his family continues to surround him with love, courage and hope.

Friends of the family, known as Eli’s Lion Pack, are organizing a benefit to help ease the significant financial pressures associated with Eli’s care. They are reaching out to the community for financial contributions as well as donated products, gift cards and services for raffle baskets.

Above all, Eli’s Lion Pack is asking the community to keep Eli and his parents, Amber and Cody, in their thoughts and prayers. To learn more about Eli’s story and how you can help, visit Roaring for Eli by clicking here

Hamiltonians have always shown their strength when one of their own needs support. This is one of those moments. Please share this article with your networks.

Before the Ballot with Bernard Tompkins - Councillor Candidate for Hamilton City Council – Ward 2.

Enjoy this instalment of Before the Ballot with Bernard Tompkins , Councillor Candidate for Hamilton City Council – Ward 2.

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

Hamilton is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. From our stunning waterfront and the Niagara Escarpment to our historic neighbourhoods, incredible parks, and vibrant local businesses, Ward 2 has so much to offer. It's a community I'm proud to have been born and raised in, and 37 years later, I'm still proud to call it home.

Despite all of those strengths, many residents, visitors, and business owners have expressed concerns about the state of our downtown with respect to our mental health and addiction support infrastructure. Instead of experiencing everything that makes Hamilton special, they're too often met with concerns about public safety, cleanliness, and disorder.

I believe our taxpayers deserve better. Residents pay significant property taxes and expect clean streets, safe parks, well-maintained public spaces, and responsible financial management. We need to ensure public dollars are being spent efficiently, transparently, and on priorities that improve the quality of life for everyone.

One of the biggest challenges we face is addiction and mental health. These are real issues that deserve compassion, treatment, and long-term support. But we also need to examine whether or not our delivery methods are creating positive outcomes for the affected individuals and our communities.

I believe every publicly funded program should have clear, measurable goals so residents know whether it's making a real difference. If a program isn't delivering meaningful results, we need to review it, improve it, or invest in approaches that do.

I also believe addiction and mental health services should be located where people can receive the care they need without placing additional pressure on our business districts, parks, schools, and neighbourhood gathering places. We can support vulnerable people while also ensuring families feel safe, businesses can succeed, and public spaces remain welcoming for everyone.

As a father of two children under 10, I want to help build a Ward 2 where families can walk our streets with confidence, children can play safely in our parks, and local

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.

Abduikarim, Eisham - Councillor Candidate Ward 2

This is an important question, and I believe it deserves a balanced answer. I support attracting responsible investment and quality project that creates good jobs and strengthen Hamilton’s economy

AI infrastructure is likely to become an important part of Canada’s economic future, and I want Hamilton to benefit where it makes sense.

At the same time, projects of this scale require informed decision-making. Council should have clear, independent information about the impacts on electricity, water, infrastructure, the environment, and the number of long-term local jobs the project will create.

Residents also deserve meaningful opportunities to understand these projects and have their voices heard before major decisions are made. During my conversations with residents across Ward 2, many have told me they want to be informed and involved in the decision-making process, not learn about major projects after key decisions have already been made.

My approach is straightforward: welcome responsible investment, make decisions based on evidence, and ensure that growth benefits both Hamilton and the people who call it home.

Austin, Sasha - Mayoral Candidate

I am strongly opposed to any steps forwards on a approval of the Steel Port AI Data Centres. My opposition towards a Artificial Intelligence Data Centre will never change. There is no positive impacts that the Steelport AI Data Centre will bring to our city or citizens. It will in fact cause immeasurable destruction.

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.

Floyd, Seth- School Board Trustee Ward 7 Public

What I think about AI is complex, because it is a broader term than many realize. It needs to be made clear that not all AI is the same, and there are some merits to AI usage in the STEM disciplines. For example, predictive AI is being used in the development of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) for medical research, intending to reduce or eliminate the need for animal models. That is an example of harm reduction that I believe everyone can get behind. However, that is not the AI that most people are referring to when it is brought up in discussion. I also believe it is not the AI usage being referred to by the corporations when they sell us the promise of some inevitable future which requires AI-dedicated data centers at massive scaling. The AI being thrust upon us is generative AI, or what I refer to as consumer AI. This AI usage is energy intensive, requiring massive centers which have the potential to cause numerous environmental harms that the public has openly denounced. The end-product are primarily fabricated imagery, text summaries, and chat bots. All things we do not need. This is not even mentioning the potential malicious uses of generative AI, such as spreading misinformation, impersonating people without their consent, and replacing jobs (especially those that require human elements of empathy and creativity).

The public has made their opinion very clear, that they are against AI-specific data centers. I have made my opinion clear as well, as evidenced by public delegations (albeit, it is hard to cover such a complex topic within a time limit). In short: regulated AI use, restricted primarily to medical research, is something I would support in most cases so long as there is justification. Consumer AI is something I am firmly against.

This brings us to the Hamilton perspective specifically, and whether it is being handled the "right way". The recent vote at council was disappointing to say the least. On June 16th, the moratorium for AI-data centers, including establishing a by-law, passed without amendments. If there was concern about the ICBL, it should have been raised and potentially amended at this point but it was not. Then a last-minute surprise special meeting, comprised of only individuals who would benefit from AI-specific data centers, including a registered lobbyist for one of the developments in Hamilton (DRAC / Steelport), was held July 15th, the day before the vote on the ICBL. This "education meeting" did not include any environmental experts, HVAC experts, nor experts on the potential malicious uses of AI. I would hardly consider that a well-rounded education on the subject. Then during the council meeting right before the vote, the closed portion was held for 3 hours right before the vote, and suddenly numerous councillors who had voted in favour of the moratorium which included the ICBL changed to opposed. Again, I believe the vote could have been deferred in light of the supposed new information, in order to amend the ICBL accordingly, but it was not. No supposed concerns were raised till it was too late; councillors simply threw their hands up and said their hands were tied.

The voices of the Hamilton residents were effectively cast aside by this vote. Which is absurd when you stop and think: the ICBL was only a temporary pause on AI data centers, not a permanent ban. I think developers and decision-makers acting in good faith do not fear reasonable questions and careful review. In fact, they advocate for it.

Stathakos, Jonathan-- Councillor candidate- Ward 9

I'm not against investment in our community. I welcome projects that create good local jobs and make life better for the people who live here. But a project has to work for residents, not against them.

I will not support this data centre, or any project, that:

• Drives up the cost of living for residents, including the strain a massive power draw puts on our electricity grid.
• Creates few lasting local jobs once the construction phase ends.
• Harms our environment through the energy and water it consumes.
• Makes daily life worse through the noise, vibration, and disturbance residents would have to live next to.

We know exactly what that looks like in Ward 9. For years, the GFL dump has denied families the ability to enjoy their own homes and backyards. It has hurt their quality of life, and they've been left to live with it.

I'm not going to support a project that repeats that same mistake.

Before I back any development of this scale, it has to prove it will deliver real jobs, protect our environment, and respect the people who live nearby. If it can't clear that bar, it doesn't belong here.

Werhun, Peter-- Councillor candidate- Ward 6

I have an MSc in chemistry and did my undergrad in chemistry at McMaster. I love science and innovation (and McMaster) and want it to flourish. I am not against progress. But I am against unregulated development - and what has been proposed in Hamilton is similar to what the state of New York made official just last week.

We have a right to have a debate in Hamilton about the costs and benefits of proposals and to have a framework in place for assessing those, without being talked down to by Laurentian elites. Somehow, when it comes to a maximum heat by-laws, we need years of study. But one year is too much to ask for when it comes to large scale AI data centers.

The federal government can't stop Canfor from shutting down mills, or defence companies from relocating overseas, but meanwhile Hamilton is the roadblock to Canada's economic future? Canada lost more good, union jobs this week than an AI data center would produce in its lifetime.

The Special Council meeting was hamfisted and counterproductive. It was not an attempt to work through issues, it was an attempt to patronize Hamiltonians into acquiescence by treating us like luddite rubes. I can certainly appreciate experts coming to give their views, but I am deeply disappointed by the way that the process has evolved.

The interim control by-law was certainly imperfect, but it represented a response to real concerns of Hamiltonians that were not assuaged, but dismissed. I believe that if we are going to build a Hamilton of the future, we should expect better, more informed decision-making that brings people to the table on these kinds of decisions rather than talking down to them.

A last-minute suggestion that members of Council (and the Mayor) actually had no idea what they were talking about and needed to be "educated", a legal opinion that from the sound of it boxed Council in with conclusions rather than providing strategies and solutions, and a sudden about face after a closed-door session were all unforced errors of governance. As a Hamiltonian sitting in the gallery of the Council Chamber, only one word describes how I felt watching my City government struggling to get through the day: humiliated. And that is a feeling that we feel far too often and have felt for far too long in one of Canada's largest and most important cities.

I cannot blame people for feeling there was a bait-and-switch, and that failure of leadership falls on Council and the Mayor.

Before the Ballot- The Candidate's Edition- How to Canvass a Ward Without Losing Track of It

A strong ground campaign needs to answer three questions at almost any point during the election: Where have we been? What did we learn? Where do we need to go next?

Without a system, candidates can spend weeks canvassing only to discover that some neighbourhoods were visited repeatedly while others were missed entirely. Volunteers may collect valuable information that never makes its way back to the campaign. Residents who asked for a follow-up may never receive one. That is almost guaranteed to lose that vote(s). Streets can be forgotten, apartment buildings overlooked and precious campaign hours wasted.

The solution is a canvassing operation that treats the ward as a series of manageable territories rather than one enormous map.

Map the Entire Ward-  Before the first serious canvass begins, divide the ward into clearly defined geographic sections. These might be neighbourhoods, polling subdivisions, apartment clusters or groups of streets that can reasonably be covered during a single canvassing session. Each area should have a unique name or number so there is never any confusion about where a team has been assigned.

The objective is simple: every residential area should appear somewhere in the campaign's canvassing plan. Create a master tracking document listing every street and, where practical, the address ranges to be covered. Larger streets should be divided into sections. Apartment and condominium buildings should be listed separately because they often require different access arrangements and canvassing strategies.

The campaign should then track each area through stages such as - not started, partially canvassed, completed and revisit required. This immediately gives the campaign manager a visual picture of the ground operation.

Think in Routes, Not Random Streets-  One of the most common inefficiencies in canvassing is approaching it casually: driving to a neighbourhood, parking the car and deciding where to knock once everyone arrives. Routes should be prepared beforehand. A good route allows a candidate or canvassing team to move continuously without repeatedly crossing major roads, retracing steps or walking long distances between doors.

Whenever possible, complete both sides of a street systematically. If a street cannot be finished, record exactly where the canvass stopped. "Part of Maple Avenue completed" is not useful. "Maple Avenue, numbers 1–117 completed; resume at 119" is. Write it down- trust us, you won’t remember. That level of precision prevents the next team from starting over. Cul-de-sacs, townhouse complexes and courts should be grouped logically. Large apartment buildings should usually be treated as their own canvassing assignments.

Build a Simple Tracking System- Campaign technology can be sophisticated, but the underlying information does not need to be complicated. For every canvassing area, the campaign should be able to record:
 the date canvassed;

•  the streets and address ranges completed;
•  the candidate or volunteers who covered the area;
•  the number of doors attempted;
•  residents who requested follow-up;
•  significant local issues raised;
•  areas that need to be revisited.

Individual voter information should be handled carefully and in accordance with applicable privacy and election rules. The purpose of the system is not to create unnecessary dossiers on residents. It is to ensure that legitimate campaign interactions and commitments do not

Hamilton Has Had Enough Politicians. Will a Leader Please Step Forward?

There is still time. There is still time for one of Hamilton’s mayoral candidates to emerge as something more than a candidate, more than a campaign, and more than a politician. There is still time to become a leader.

Hamilton has had its share of politicians. What it needs now is leadership.

As an interesting thought exercise, consider the types of mayoral candidates that invariably emerge during a municipal election. Then look at the current field and ask yourself: Who fits where? If you find yourself assigning a candidate to one—or perhaps several—of the categories below, you may be inclined to temporarily remove that person from your leadership list.

Temporarily is the important word. None of these categories means that a candidate cannot become an excellent mayor or a genuine leader. It simply means that, at this point in the campaign, they may not have demonstrated it yet.

And there is still time.

The Classic

The Classic Candidate lives inside the campaign. The website is polished. The messaging is carefully managed. The appearances are planned. The policy releases arrive according to schedule. Everything has its time and place, and the expectation is that Hamiltonians—and sometimes the media—will march according to the campaign's timeline.

Questions that fit the plan are welcomed. Questions that do not can become inconvenient. The Classic may be reluctant to respond to difficult media questions, particularly when the issue was not anticipated by the campaign team. Requests for positions on emerging matters can be deflected, delayed or left unanswered because responding would mean stepping outside the carefully constructed strategy.

The greatest danger for the Classic is the campaign bubble. Every successful campaign needs trusted advisers. But campaigns can become echo chambers in which everyone is looking at the same polling, hearing the same feedback and reinforcing the same assumptions.

Blind spots that may be obvious to those outside the campaign can become almost invisible to those inside it. A leader must sometimes be willing to walk out of the campaign room.

The Machinist

The Machinist understands how elections work. This candidate understands a fundamental reality that is sometimes obscured by rallies, endorsements, social media impressions and enthusiastic crowds: ultimately, you must get your voters to the ballot box.

You can hold every event imaginable. You can collect endorsements. You can dominate social media. You can speak before packed rooms. But if you cannot identify your vote and pull it on election day, you lose. The Machinist understands organization, targeting and electoral mathematics. This type of candidate can sometimes produce a result that surprises political observers.

A Machinist who begins as a tactical disruptor can develop into a serious contender. Alternatively, the candidate can become a significant vote splitter whose presence changes the outcome without ever winning the office.

Never underestimate someone who understands the machinery. But machinery alone is not leadership.

The Name

The Name understands the considerable value of recognition. That recognition may come from previously holding elected office, years of involvement in Hamilton politics, a prominent role in the community, a career in radio or television, or any number of other avenues that make a candidate familiar before the campaign even begins.

If The Name is an incumbent, the advantages can be even greater. Unlike lesser-known candidates who must urgently introduce themselves to voters, The Name can afford to move more cautiously. There is less pressure to be everywhere immediately because the public already knows who they are—or, perhaps more accurately, believes it knows who they are.

The risk is confusing familiarity with support. Name recognition gets a candidate into the conversation. It does not necessarily win the argument.

The Optimist

The Optimist believes the traditional rules of campaigning are changing—and may believe they can win without following many of them. Rather than building the classic campaign infrastructure, The Optimist may rely heavily on social media, earned media, unconventional outreach and the power of an idea to catch fire.

Political observers often dismiss these candidates early. They may be labelled unserious because they lack the traditional machinery, money, organization or campaign polish associated with a serious contender. That dismissal may sometimes be justified. But not always and not here on The Hamiltonian.

The political landscape is changing. Social media has transformed how candidates communicate, how movements form and how quickly an unknown person can become widely known.

The Optimist's challenge is turning attention into organization, and enthusiasm into votes. Those who automatically count such candidates out may be relying on yesterday's political rulebook.

The Perennial

The Perennial keeps coming back. Election after election, the candidate remains undeterred by previous results and convinced that their ideas—and perhaps they themselves—are what the city needs.

There can be something admirable about persistence. There can also be a point at which persistence becomes disconnected from political reality.

The question for voters is whether The Perennial has grown, learned and evolved between campaigns—or is simply running the same race again while expecting a different result.

The Low Profile

Then there is The Low Profile. Comparatively speaking, this candidate barely seems to be campaigning at all. There may be no polished website, few public statements, limited media coverage and little meaningful social media presence. The candidacy itself can become something of a mystery.

Perhaps there is a strategy yet to emerge. Perhaps there is an organization quietly being built. Perhaps the candidate simply registered. In politics, mystery can create curiosity. But eventually, anyone asking Hamiltonians to entrust them with the mayor's office must tell Hamiltonians who they are, what they believe and what they intend to do. Silence is not a platform.

Now, Match the Candidate

As of this writing, Hamilton's registered mayoral candidates, alphabetically by surname, are:

Sasha Austin
Ejaz Butt
Rob Cooper
Paul Fromm
Scarlett Gillespie
Keanin Loomis
Pamela Mitchell
Nathalie Xian Yi Yan

Now comes the exercise. Match the candidates with the types.

There does not need to be a perfect fit. Categories can overlap. A candidate might be part Classic and part Machinist. Another might combine The Name with The Low Profile. The point is not to force every candidate neatly into a box.

The point is to think critically about what we are actually watching. Are we watching campaigns? Are we watching political strategies? Or are we watching leaders emerge?

There is a difference. The good news is that this election is far from finished. A leader can still emerge. That may happen because an existing candidate changes course, becomes bolder, steps outside the campaign machinery and begins demonstrating something Hamiltonians have not yet seen.

Or someone new may still enter the race. Either way, leadership is recognizable when it appears.

Clues: 

A leader is not beholden to the campaign bubble. Good advisers matter, but a leader knows when to step outside the strategy and act on conviction.

A leader accepts debate, participates in debates—and initiates them. Leaders are not frightened by competing ideas. They are willing to explain what they believe, defend their positions and allow those positions to be tested.

A leader can be wrong. More importantly, a leader can say, "I was wrong." They own mistakes, explain them and learn from them rather than performing verbal gymnastics to make the mistake disappear.

A leader understands Hamilton—not because a campaign consultant recently instructed them to begin "listening," but because they have been listening all along. They know what Hamiltonians are talking about. They pay attention to neighbourhood conversations. They follow community groups and public debates. They understand what is being discussed in The Hamiltonian, The Hamilton Spectator, The Public Record, Facebook groups, X and elsewhere.

They do not need a focus group to tell them that an issue matters.They already know.

A leader also possesses a certain constructive aggression—not hostility, not belligerence, but fire. It is the quality that says: This matters to me, and I am prepared to fight for it.

A leader has courage and is prepared to do what they believe is right, even when doing so may be unpopular.

A leader has integrity. The person the public sees is fundamentally the same person who exists when the cameras are gone.

A leader is authentic. Every sentence does not require a script, a communications adviser or three rounds of political vetting.

A leader has vision. Politicians can become consumed by the next election. Leaders must be capable of seeing beyond it—to the Hamilton that will exist five, ten and twenty years from now.

And perhaps most importantly, a leader understands that leadership is not something conferred by winning an election. An election gives someone an office. It does not automatically make them a leader.

Hamiltonians should watch carefully over the coming months. Watch who answers difficult questions and who avoids them. Watch who debates and who hides behind strategy. Watch who changes their mind when the evidence demands it and who changes their position when the polling demands it. Watch who understands Hamilton and who appears to be learning about it from a campaign briefing book.

The mayoral race is still young enough for candidates to surprise us. Someone can still rise above the machinery, the messaging, the caution and the choreography.

Hamilton has had enough politicians. Let's see if we elect a leader.

If you are a candidate, you may want to proceed through this thought exercise yourself. To those who fit into the categories and are unwilling to lead, we will end with a line from a Shania Twain classic “That don’t impress me much!”

The Hamiltonian

The Loomis Launch: Energy, Optimism and One Complicated Electoral Equation

To an audience of roughly 150 to 200 enthusiastic supporters, Keanin Loomis officially launched his campaign for mayor at Ringside Hamilton.

Opening the event was Terry Cooke, no stranger to Hamilton politics, having served on Hamilton City Council before becoming Chair of the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth from 1994 to 2000.

Cooke spoke confidently about his belief that Loomis is the right choice to become Hamilton's next mayor. His "big reveal," as he described it, was the result of polling commissioned by the Loomis campaign. According to the results presented by Cooke, Loomis holds a comfortable lead, with Andrea Horwath in second place and Rob Cooper in third. No other candidates were mentioned in the presentation.

Cooke was followed by Loomis's spouse, Trish, who offered a more personal perspective. She spoke about what it was like for the family to come so close in the last mayoral election and about the journey that ultimately led Loomis to decide to run again. She was warmly received.

Keanin then took the stage, delivering a roughly 15-to-20-minute speech intended both to energize those in the room and to begin making his case to the broader electorate.

He said the formal "listening" phase of his campaign has concluded and that he will soon release what he described as a "smart" plan for Hamilton. Loomis indicated that the plan will address issues including homelessness, roads and attracting new investment, among other priorities.

Loomis also highlighted the experience he has gained since the last municipal election, speaking particularly warmly about his advocacy work on behalf of Hamilton's steel industry. He reflected candidly on losing the 2022 mayoral election by approximately 1,600 votes and

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:

 

Before presenting our questions, we wish to acknowledge that we understand you cannot make legally binding or contractual commitments through a media interview, nor is that our expectation. Instead, we are seeking to better understand whether there are principles, commitments, or approaches that Steelport would be prepared to explore in order to build public confidence and identify common ground.

Here is the interview: 

 

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