Empty Buses

I see that Hamilton City Council is deliberating on public transit issues as part of their budget discussions today.  And, it is no surprise that one Council member has raised the false issue of empty buses.  

Here is a little story I put together based on my experiences as a Councillor and transit advocate back two decades ago.  Clarovista is a fictional place.

----------

One thing I’ve learned in my short career in municipal politics is that municipal politicians know how to problem solve.  It is what they do.

And the elected officials at Clarovista City Hall are no exception.

Take the issue of public transit for example.

Public opinion is divided on transit in Clarovista.

Some people want it.  And others don’t.

Now the people who want it are mostly those that use it or would use it if the service was any good.
Those who don’t want it or don’t want much of it or don’t want it on their street mostly have garages and two or three cars in their driveways.

These people with cars and garages worry about buses a lot particularly the matter of empty buses.  And they let their Council members know.

Councillor Roger Harris is particularly responsive.  Few buses run through Councillor Harris’ ward. 
Those that do sure look empty to his constituents.

I’ve tried in public and in private conversations to explain empty buses to Harris. They happen routinely in the transit world, I say. They get empty when going in the opposite direction to rush hour peak flows and at the end of routes. Some times of day are less busy and some areas of the municipality have fewer riders.

Harris himself has not been on a bus since riding a yellow one to day camp back when Diefenbaker was Opposition leader and C.D Howe and the Liberal Party were arrogant and flogging pipelines.
Harris has ideas on how transit management can address the empty bus dilemma. Small buses are the way to go. They cost less and the optics would be better.  And, if the route ran every hour instead of every 20 minutes, we could save money.  Councillor Harris puts energy into the sketching out better routes for the buses.  Tricky stuff. 

Tonight, we receive the annual transit review.  It is the only area of our responsibilities that we review each year.

Questions of staff focus on efficiency, pros and cons of raising fares, decreasing support from the province.  Councillors have ideas in all of these areas.

But Councillor Harris’ brainwave stops the meeting.

“Why can’t the buses just go back to the garage when they are empty?”

Receive and File

A leak of  raw sewage into Cootes Paradise in Hamilton over several years caused quite an uproar in the Ambitious City. Citizens were outraged that City Council decided to keep the spill a secret.  Council has the right to keep certain legal matters confidential.  Was it appropriate in this case?  Probably not.  But it is hard to judge when you don't have all the facts that were shared in camera.

Anyway, I've been writing on municipal politics and decided to share a chapter that deals with in camera meetings and Council transparency in the fictional town of Clarovista.   Here it is.  

---------

Receive and File

By Councillor Kenneth Williams

I find land use planning stuff kind of complicated. The reports are like those
instructions for putting together the kid’s Christmas presents in that, while the salient points were repeated so as even the thickest reader can understand them, they always seem sort of back to front to this dim-witted decision maker.

Case in point is tonight’s Planning Report 14-2727-17.

It is dealing with what our staff call redundant park space.

Apparently, we have too much park space in Clarovista.

And we have a policy that if none of our public sector partners want such property, we can sell it off at market value price to whoever wants it. But how does one put a monetary value on parkland? I, for one, have no idea.

This particular “redundant” space is a small parcel of land located along the shoreline of Lake Vista. The property measures about 7.5 acres. I’ve heard it referred to as a passive park.  Such a park allows for the preservation of natural habitat and permits only a low level of development.  The park is well used by families, birders, picnickers and seniors. There are picnic benches and in the summer a Music in the Park program - Vista Voices - draws small but enthusiastic artists and audiences.  J.P Gormley owns an adjacent property. His plans for a hotel/marina/convention centre at that site aren’t going anywhere – or so it seems.

Mayor Martin has been aggressive in pursuing the sale of unneeded municipal assets.  But he hasn’t championed a park sale.  Not until tonight.

There is great public interest in this issue.  The Council Chambers are full and there is an overflow crowd in the Atrium.

The staff report supports a rezoning that would enable a sale but has many, many conditions attached to it - fourteen to be exact.   The report features several appendices, maps with different shadings, asterisks here and there and a suggestion for a holding zone.

In my view, the person who would purchase this property with all these conditions is the kind of guy who would invest in a Trump Tower in Bathurst Inlet. I mean no one is going to buy it.

The report is under discussion.

It seems my colleagues are interested in calling the vote and as it stands now the sale of the parkland will not happen.

For his part, Mayor Martin is not smiling tonight.  He asks to go in camera.

The public is never happy to see Councillors go behind closed doors.  However, the Municipal Act lays out clear situations where in camera meetings are allowed.

In this case, as our discussion relates “to a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board” an in camera session is permitted.

Before we head into closed session in an adjacent committee room, we clear all other items from the evening’s agenda.

Most of the public remains seated.

We have a long discussion in camera – about 45 minutes.

When we return to the Council Chambers a significant portion of the public has remained.

Clerk Melissa Belmonte reports:

“As you are aware a closed meeting was held. The only item considered was a matter respecting the acquisition of property. There is nothing further to report.”

Mayor Martin takes charge.

“As far as the staff report, do I have a motion,” asks the Mayor?

“Receive and file,” shouts Councillor Wright.

“All in favour?”

“Carried.”

“Motion to adjourn?”

“So moved.”

And, so, abruptly the proceedings are finished.  It is 11:15 p.m.  We should all go home.
But many citizens linger outside the Council Chambers chatting.

“What just happened Councillor,” I’m asked as I leave the Council Chambers?  “What was decided?”

“I’m sorry but I can’t tell you what went on in the in-camera session,” I respond meekly.

Councillors can’t talk about matters discussed in camera that remain confidential.  This, of course, is somewhat at odds with the duty of Council to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality.

 “OK, but what does receive and file mean?  Has the park been sold or what?”

It is a reasonable question.  But what is the appropriate answer?

“Hmm.  It means Council received the information contained in the staff report and didn’t act on it tonight and may or may not act on it in the future.  I’m not sure if that is helpful.”

Developer J.P Gormley

As one of the citizens begins to formulate another question J.P Gormley, his senior planner, associate planner and other subordinates pass the group on the way out of the building.

They look pleased.

-----