Ask questions, get answers, encourage dialogue on LRT

Brad Clark served as Stoney Creek MPP, aprovincial cabinet minister and city councillor.He is a freelance writer,public affairs commentator and public affairs consultant with his firm, Brad Clark & Associates.

I love fishing. It's an absolute rush when you get a bite.

The drag starts to shriek while the rod bends under the weight of the fish. You know when you have a big one. You work to avoid the weeds and you remain patient. In many respects, the LRT is Hamilton's big one.

For 10 years, successive city councils repeated their public proviso that LRT capital costs must be fully funded by the province or there would be no LRT.

Accepting the fact that somecouncillorsand citizens now have reservations to this significant undertaking does not necessitate revisiting the decision making process and past deliberations.- Brad Clark

In May 2015, Premier Wynne announced a maximum $1 billion grant for higher order transit projects including a shorter LRT line, a new GOStation and James Street spur line.

Subsequently, council approved an agreement with Metrolinx to work out the finer details of the design, responsibilities and operations.

Naturally, there would be many questions raised from councillors, staff, citizens and even the province.

Informed process necessary

Regardless of their personal positions, it would be sage advice for council to treat all such questions with respect and encourage open dialogue.

Attributing motives to inquirers and dismissing any such queries as frivolous does our city a serious disservice. Quite frankly, we can only be assured of an informed process when such questions are fully answered in an open and transparent manner.

Accepting the fact that some councillors and citizens now have reservations to this significant undertaking does not necessitate revisiting the decision-making process and past deliberations.

How does the city proceed from here? Based on the long-standing procedural rules, any motion to reverse the council position would require a two-thirdsmajority vote including a motion for a referendum.

Risking alienation

It is odd that someone at city hall felt compelled to pay for an independent legal report to tell them what they already heard from their city solicitor and city clerk.

While the unilateral retaining of outside legal counsel might have put an end to the referendum debate, it did so by unnecessarily risking further public alienation and growing intransigence.

Some people are now musing that there are two or three votes still required to move the project along which would only require a simple majority. While that is true, any resulting financial liability for scuttling the project will lie solely with the local municipality.

Council rightfully needs and deserves answers about fares, operating costs, long term capital costs and potential revenue losses for the HSR.- Brad Cark

The province has the legislated authority to indemnify the crown from any financial harm due to cancelled contracts. However, that indemnification does not extend to the local municipalities.

There is a very real risk that contracted parties will be in a position to litigate any costs incurred from the cancellation of any contracts, which could feasibly include the arm's length agency Metrolinx.

It is now time to negotiate in good faith, minimize the nuisance where possible and mitigate impacts.

The inability or unwillingness to mitigate impacts is not sufficient cause to cancel contracts or withdraw from the Memorandum of Understanding.

Council rightfully needs and deserves answers about fares, operating costs, long term capital costs and potential revenue losses for the HSR.

The continued re-deliberating on ridership, economic uptakes, taxes and the business case is purely rhetorical given that the project has already been approved.

In summary, the City of Hamilton has a $1 billlon fish on the line. Let's not lose it in the weeds.

bradclark@bell.net