Showing posts with label Local politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Local politics. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 07, 2023

Lessons Learned from Delegating


Sometime when you’ve got nothing better to do head down to your local Silly Hall or Regional Government (if you are lucky enough to have two municipal governments) and delegate.

 It is your civic duty. In that spirit I combed my hair, put on the closest thing that I’ve got to church clothes, and headed off to the Region of Halton Canada some time back to address the budget. 

Delegating is always a learning experience. 

Here is what I learned. 

First, when you are finished speaking don’t sit down. Once you sit down Councillors will ask staff questions and you will have no ability to respond. Staff can say anything like: Bob Wood has a point but he would have more credibility on poverty issues if he hadn’t got his Grade Eight diploma out of a vending machine. 

Second, Councillors will not ask questions that you are expecting. I came prepared to answer in the negative as to whether I or members of my immediate family and/or committee colleagues had ever been members of the Communist Party. You can imagine my surprise when asked whether I thought water rates are regressive. 

Third, expect to engage in philosophical first year university discussions when you believe the agenda is fairly focussed or alternatively expect to focus on the agenda when you would like to engage in airy fairy dialogue. 

And finally, remember when you get the urge and feel like delegating that these issues are always too complicated for the public. That is why God created politicians, I guess.

Thursday, December 08, 2022

Councillors Take City to Court


Earlier this week Canadian Dimension published a story I wrote on city politics in Regina. It is not quite a man-bites-dog story but neither is it something that happens every day.   

Daniel LeBlanc, a Regina City Councillor is taking his own municipality to court.  Here is that story. https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/regina-has-a-plan-to-end-homelessness-so-whats-stopping-it
Councillor Daniel Leblanc

There have been some developments since that article was published.   On Tuesday most of the Regina Council signed on to a notice of motion that the Councillors who initiated the lawsuit have violated the Regina code of Ethics by-law.MN22.7 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/regina-city-council-mayor-manager-lawsuit-homelessness-1.6675651


To consider such a motion at yesterday’s (December 7th) Council meeting required unanimous support of Council.  That was received yesterday as the two Councillors who were involved in the suit did not vote because of what, I believe, would be a conflict of interest in Saskatchewan municipalities. https://regina.ctvnews.ca/regina-city-council-passes-motion-of-confidence-in-city-manager-niki-anderson-1.6185099 

In part the motion read: 

 “affirm and convey [council’s] continued confidence in City Manager Niki Anderson” and “express its disappointment over the negative impact on City Council’s operational integrity and oversight that the initiated court action has created.” 

Court proceedings are scheduled for next Tuesday ahead of Regina’s December 14th budget meeting.



Wednesday, May 04, 2022

Deserving

(I'm hoping that the 2022 Ontario election campaign looks at the issue of poverty.  Here is a story I wrote on poverty in Ontario.  I made it up but it could be true. This story won the 2021 Norfolk County’s Laureate award for fiction.  It will take you about 18 minutes to read.  

-----------

“You need to tell them where the bodies are buried.”

Councillor Ken Williams could not get that strange phone message out of his head.

There had been that anonymous call left on his voice mail this morning – the fourth consecutive day this had occurred.  Of course, it wasn’t that unusual to get odd calls. 

Somehow, though, this one was different.

What bodies?  Buried where, he wondered.

Williams, Ward 2 Councillor for the City of Clarovista, was headed into a municipal council meeting on this gloomy Tuesday.  It promised to be a long day.  

As he made his way to his seat, Williams was approached by Sharon Smith, the diligent city reporter for the Clarovista Clarion.

“Councillor Williams, could I speak with you about some strange calls we have been getting at the Clarion?”

“I’m not sure I could help you about calls you are receiving Sharon,” Williams answered warily.  

“They have been mentioning your name,” she continued.

“My name? Umm, sure.  Perhaps we could talk after the meeting.”

“Alright then, I’ll catch you after. Doesn’t look like there will be much exciting news to write about from this meeting.”

Just then Mayor Ted Martin, decked out in a designer Grey Notch Lapel Suit complete with chain of office trailed by his executive assistant, glided past Smith and Williams. Late by about ten minutes as is/was his custom.  Now the meeting could commence.

This was Williams’ sixth year on Council.  He’d long ago figured out the routine.  As sure as the rainbow smelt will run into Lake Vista in the spring, staff bring this particular report every April.  It is called The Annual Review of Grants for Agencies and Organizations that Operate Health and/or Social Services Programs. 

The verbose report title mirrored an awkward process that compelled organizations to jump through a nonsensical number of unnecessary hoops. That review would likely take up the bulk of today’s meeting.

The regular April crowd was all there; agency people, community activists, those with lived experience.  Some of Williams’ colleagues referred to these people as members of “special interest groups.” But Williams had learned long ago from his trade unionist grandfather who the real special interest groups were.  

“Kenny,” he’d say, “never underestimate the power of the banks and their shady sidekicks – the developers.”  

This year Council had an additional delegation, an expert on social policy from the university.  Williams knew Dr. Patricia Fleming slightly and had gone to a couple of seminars in which she had participated.

Fleming was called to the lectern by the Mayor and began her presentation with the usual salutary remarks. Then she moved on to territory that was familiar to Williams.
“Ontario’s treatment of the poor goes back to the 18th century and is built on the whole idea that there are two types of poor people - deserving poor and the non-deserving poor,” she lectured. 

Williams knew this; had made the point himself as it related to the current situation in the 
province.
“The first piece of legislation important for you to understand,” Fleming continued, “is the Constitution Act of 1791.”

Oh dear, thought Williams, she will never get through 204 years of Ontario social policy history within her ten-minute time allocation.

“In setting up the governance structure for Upper Canada, or Ontario as we now know it, Lieutenant Governor Simcoe took most elements from Great Britain’s legislation except, and this is paramount, not the poor law.  Other jurisdictions, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, to name two, adopted the Poor Laws.  You must appreciate that this effort to ban a poor law in Ontario promoted the growth of private charities.  All these charities held their own distinct beliefs and this resulted in weakening of public support for those in need.”

Mayor Martin cleared his throat.  

“Mrs. Fleming I’m concerned that you are veering off topic.  I’m having trouble seeing 
what any of what you are saying has to do with what is on the agenda today.”

“It’s Doctor Fleming, sir.  On the contrary Mr. Mayor this history has everything to do with today’s agenda.  May I continue without interruption, please?”

“Before you do, could you tell us a little more about Poor Laws, Dr. Fleming,” piped up Councillor Jim Bristow.

“No, No, Councillor there will be time for questions later. I need to keep Mrs. Fleming, Dr Fleming, on track.” The Mayor liked to be in control.   

Dr. Fleming carried on.

“As I was saying in Ontario, specific forms of outdoor relief (coal, bread, milk) and institutional relief were offered to those who were considered deserving. We are talking here about the aged and infirm, widows, “deserted” mothers, apprenticed children.  In addition, sometimes public work jobs were provided to new arrivals and those considered able-bodied."  

Just as the Mayor was about to interrupt again there was grumbling and shuffling in the public seats.  As Martin reached for his gavel, two determined women rushed the dais.  One grabbed the chief magistrate by his shoulders while the other attempted to yank the chain of office from his neck.  This removal was not without difficulty especially as the mayor’s dutiful assistant had leapt into the fray to save the Mayor from harm.  

Harming the Mayor was not part of the plan though; it was the chain of office the women were after. After a short tussle, the assailants had the chain in hand and were dashing out of the committee room shouting something about justice, a cover up and buried bodies.  Williams recognized these women from earlier protest actions around town.  They were part of a group called Clarovista Coalition for Fairness and Justice (CCFJ).
.
Meanwhile the Mayor lay sprawled inelegantly on the floor.

“We will have a fifteen-minute adjournment,” mewled his worship as he struggled to regain his feet - unhurt but dispossessed of the 130-year-old symbol of mayoral primacy.
Members of the public and those Clarovista bureaucrats assembled for the meeting sat in stunned silence.

“Wow. Now I’ve got a story idea,” Sharon Smith declared. 

As what had happened was unprecedented no one really knew what to do.  The exhaustive Clarovista emergency preparedness booklet that detailed procedures did not cover theft of the chain of office. Consequently no one thought to pursue the thieves.

The Mayor staggered from the room as his executive assistant announced that it had now been decided that the meeting was adjourned at the call of the Chair.  

Dr. Fleming had returned to the dais and was trying to be heard while waving a book over her head.  Her efforts were pointless as no one could hear above the commotion.  

Sharon Smith, the reporter, had found a quiet place to send in her story. 

For his part, Williams meandered to the front of the room to persuade Dr. Fleming that it might be best to send in the remainder of her presentation to the clerk’s department.  They would distribute it to Council members.  She seemed deflated but handed Williams a book entitled Poverty in Ontario 1791-2000.

“I’d like you to have this book Councillor Williams.  I think you will find the chapter that covers the history of the Clarovista Poorhouse of particular interest."

Days went by and yet there was no news of the missing chain of office.

After all that had occurred at the Tuesday Council the meeting that reconvened the following Monday was somewhat of an anti-climax.  

Not to the various agencies who had appealed their grants, of course.  Some of their appeals were successful, others not.  Councillors seized the opportunity to interject their presumed sage advice to the various agencies - Do more with less, build partnerships, consider more fundraising projects.  Always at play was the whole matter of who ought to get service and who was not really entitled to it.  After all the hard-working families of Clarovista could not be expected to dig into their pocketbooks to support every nutty idea the kumbaya crowd chose to advance.

Those same issues were dealt with at length in Poverty in Ontario 1791-1995. Dr. Fleming had written a surprisingly interesting book.  Chapter Sixteen, which dealt with the history of the Clarovista poorhouse, filled in some blanks for Williams who had put aside other reading on the weekend to go through Fleming’s book.

Of course, Williams knew that poorhouses were established in the mid 19th century
to house people who required food, shelter, or care in order to survive.

The poorhouse was a response to the number of people begging on the streets, wandering the countryside, or languishing in jails.

The Clarovista poorhouse existed from 1877 up until 1933 when the municipality decided to sell off assets to raise money during the depression.  The property had been in what is currently Williams’ ward somewhere up in the northeast corner near where Mayor Martin lives.  Williams studied the map that was included in Fleming’s book.  Hold on.

“This is the mayor’s property.  That’s odd,” Williams said aloud.    

Chapter 16 laid out a map of the Poorhouse and its 50-acre site complete with building sketches showing the large stone house built in the Italianate style, barn and various out buildings, the hospital wing and the pest house.  The living arrangements were dormitory style – one side of the house women and children; the other for men.    

There were also drawings of the confinement cells or idiot cells as they were called that were used for discipline purposes. Sadly, two brothers, Harold (Inmate #1238) and Joseph Cook Inmate #1239), incarcerated behind the iron cell doors of the confinement cells perished in a fire in 1933.   The brothers had been locked in the cells for repeatedly violating the curfew and for their inability and unwillingness to find work. 

It was said that they missed curfew as they were travelling to distant towns looking for work that was hard to come by during the depression.  But at the poorhouse rules were rules and the Cook brothers had run afoul of those rules.  
 
Some in the community had called for an inquest but the authorities decided against one as fire deaths were fairly common at the time and there were complications as there was some confusion as to the location of the remains of the deceased brothers. 

The main building had been destroyed contributing to the decision to sell the property. Inmates were relocated to nearby Carson Creek.  

The Keeper, Janek Marcin, left town but turned up several years later living on the same property.  
 
How did one become an inmate at the Clarovista Poorhouse, Williams wondered.

Dr. Fleming had provided her business card with her book.  Her home number was on the back of the card. Williams dialed the number.

“Dr. Fleming, Ken Williams here.  I’m enjoying your book.  Could I ask you a couple of questions?”

“Certainly Councillor, I have some time, go ahead.”

“Well, I’m not totally clear on how people became inmates – inmate that is a horrible word - of the poorhouse.”

“It was fairly simple. Your predecessors were quite involved.”

“The Council was involved?”

“Yes.  People who had been living in Clarovista for at least two years who needed help could apply to the mayor.  The mayor and council would determine whether the Poorhouse was the best fit for the individual or family.   Then they would have to approve a recommendation for the person or people to be sent to the Poorhouse.  It was a public process like authorizing spending for a bridge or approving monies to send a councillor to a conference.”

“This just seems wrong, Dr. Fleming.”

“Yes, of course it is wrong but is it really any different than what Council does these days?  

Last week’s meeting is a case in point.  Agencies having to grovel and answer ridiculous questions from uniformed members of council Not you Councillor, of course.) in order to maintain their organizations funding or get small incremental increases to continue important community work.” 

“The budget is really tight this year, Patricia.”

“But the budget isn’t the issue, Ken.  There is a bigger community picture at play.
They chatted some more. After Dr Fleming hung up Williams was left with an uneasy feeling as he returned to his reading.

In that year of the fire, 1933, thirty percent of the labour force was out of work, and one-fifth of the population was dependent on government assistance. Ironically, the Cook brothers’ grandfather, Jonah Cook, had donated part of his farm to the County as the site for the Poorhouse.

The phone rang interrupting Williams.  It was Sharon Smith from the Clarion.  Williams considered not picking up but did just before the call went to voice mail.

Ms. Smith, how are you today?”

“Fine, Councillor.  I’m looking for a comment.”

“On……?”

“The Chain of Office has been located on the Mayor’s property in a small wooded area.”

“Really!”

“Yes, what do you think of that, Councillor Williams?”

“Well, what I think is that you should ask the mayor about it.”

“I have.  He wasn’t helpful.”

“Wasn’t helpful?”

“He said it was none of my business what was on his property. Stay off his property. He was almost shouting. The Chain of Office has been recovered and that was that.”

“Well, there is some truth to what the mayor said, don’t you think?”

“Sure, some truth.  But the Chain was in a strange spot.”

“Well, of course, it was in the woods on the mayor’s rather nice property.  It is supposed to be at city hall.” 

“No.  That’s not what I mean.  It was around the neck of a scarecrow that was dressed in a grey suit, with a City of Clarovista lapel pin and an official tie.  The scarecrow was dressed to, you know, look like the mayor.  And it had a note pinned to it.”

“A scarecrow with a note pinned to it?”

“Yes.  Here is what it said.  

Knock, knock
Who’s over there?
Harold and Joseph
And no one cares.
  
And this mayor scarecrow thingy is pointing off further into the woods.  Do you understand any of it? What is the story here?”

Williams took a deep breath thinking of how to answer.

“Those calls we’ve been getting are beginning to make sense. Maybe history has something to tell us when we know where the bodies are buried.  That’s what you should write about.”


Wednesday, April 21, 2021

"Truly Troubling"


Back in the day when I was a municipal councillor there was no such thing as an Integrity Commissioner.

Now, according to the Municipal Act, municipalities must have such a person.

That individual is expected to report to Council in an independent manner on a number of local government functions.  For example, they will look at the application of the code of conduct for Council and local Board members and the application of any procedures, rules and policies governing the ethical behaviour of members of council and of local boards.  There are other functions set out in the Act. 

The concept of promoting transparency and ensuring codes of conduct are adhered to is a good one.   There are detractors of course. Cost is an issue.  But that is beyond the scope of this brief post.  

Let’s take a quick look at the 2020 Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner for the Corporation of Norfolk authored by John Mascarin.

The report  can be found beginning at page 31 at https://www.norfolkcounty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CIC-Agenda-April-13-1.pdf

Here are some highlights.

Complaints

Three complaints were examined in 2020. 

1. It was alleged that Mayor Chopp offended the Code and the County’s Procedural By-law when she displayed a cartoon image of a fecal sandwich in a meeting with provincial staff.  The Commissioner found “when considered in context, however crude and juvenile the display of the cartoon may have been in a formal meeting it did not amount to a breach of the Code.”  We trust that this wasn’t a lunch meeting.

2. A second complaint grew out of the first one.  That complaint “related to the improper disclosure of the identity of the complainant on the part of the Mayor.”  A Norfolk County bylaw is clear.  The Integrity Commissioner shall identify all complainants to the individual who is subject of the complaint and require that the subject maintain the identity of the complainant as confidential. (See Section 14.6 of By-law 2018-33) Mayor Chopp contended that the Commissioner was the one who had breached confidentiality. The Commissioner “concluded otherwise” and determined it was the Mayor who had breached. 

3. This complaint alleged that the Mayor Chopp contravened three provisions of the Code of Conduct in interactions with members of the public in Port Dover on May 2nd.  The Commissioner concluded she hadn’t.

Inquiries

The report summarized  inquiries received over the last year.  They fell into three areas.  People were concerned about that fecal sandwich cartoon and the Mayor’s public square haircut stunt but most importantly, in my view, were concerns regarding the dysfunction of Council. 

Haircut Protest - Photo from blogTO.com

The Commissioner called this situation “truly troubling.”  

Council Relations

The November 17, 2020 Council meeting is cited. Many will recall that the attempted addition of the topic of Council Relations to the Agenda prompted the mayor to make allegations of a witch-hunt, axe and replace the Deputy Mayor, and exit the building in the midst of the meeting.

In an understatement the Commissioner wrote that  “the acrimony between members of Council was never more apparent than at this meeting.” And if you thought that was bad the Commissioner noted that “we have been advised that the level of discord has not abated in 2021.”

Should the average Norfolker care if Council members get along?

For sure.

The report notes: 

The lack of team unity.

The “dread” some feel about attending meetings of Council and committee.

The adversarial and hostile atmosphere both inside and outside the Council Chambers.

That Council operates in a debilitated state but also in a selectively secretive manner with a “complete disregard for the Code of Conduct, Council and staff policies, and policies that are put in place to protect members of the public.”


Council training and team building, agreed to some time ago,  have not happened yet.  It may be too late for the team of 2018-2022.  But when elections come around in October 2022 voters should expect answers from incumbents and contenders on how this will all be fixed. 


Friday, June 05, 2020

The Budget



On a long ago budget day, a procedural quirk
put a simple regional ward councillor
in a position to freeze the police budget.
Ward councillors don’t obstruct police budgets
because, as we all learned as kids,
the police(man) is our friend
does important and dangerous work
protects and keep us safe and
for all of this deserves to be well paid.

These are things that ward councillors,
even simple ones, should understand.
But since the common sense drumbeat
set the revolution in motion
we have come to know that the best government is
to have practically no government at all
and respect for hard earned taxpayer’s dollars
is the order of the day.
Others are compelled to run their ship tightly
while the law and order liner sails unimpeded
through the calm waters of political indifference.

On that budget day, the simple ward councillor
Having, for a time, ascended
to the lofty heights of budget committee member
advanced what was (by his own humble admission)
a particularly persuasive presentation
convincing the one colleague who needed convincing
that police spending should be apprehended and
it was a great day for local democracy
or at least it seemed that way.
But the votes aren’t counted
until the politicians raise their hands
and when they did
the police got their money, as they always do.

No media or public witnessed the sad event though
police brass made time in otherwise busy days
to behold the councillor’s misbegotten manoeuvre.
Following his 15 minutes of small town fame
our councillor drove his car like an undertaker.
Even now, my lane changes are by-the-book perfect
and inviolable police budgets escalate still.

This piece was originally published in the Dream, the Glory and 
the Strife edited by Raymond Fenech, Hidden Brook Press, 2018.


Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Six Council Votes that Show why Hamilton Ward Boundaries Need to Change*

(This story appeared originally in August at www.hamiltonjustice.ca) 

Here is some history most of you will know.

In 2001 amalgamation of the City of Hamilton with Ancaster, Dundas Flamborough, Glanbrook and Stoney Creek took place. The amalgamation resulted in eight council seats for the 70% of residents living in old Hamilton. Seven council seats were set up for the 30% percent in the five former suburbs. Sixteen years later it seems that important council votes support the minority (30%) over the majority (70%).  For example:

*Households in the former suburbs continue to pay only about a third of the transit taxes that residents of the old city pay.

*Harbour cleanup has been delayed. Suburban Councillors (and then Mayor Bratina) did not support speeding up the cleanup of the Randle Reef. A proposed meeting with federal and provincial politicians might have done that.
*Nearly all suburban councillors voted in May to defer a decision on whether Hamilton wants the billion-dollar provincial investment for Light Rapid Transit (LRT).
*Suburban councillors (and Terry Whitehead) voted against looking at the possibility of tolls for “out-of-town” truck traffic on the Red Hill and Linc expressways.
*The King Street bus-only lane was killed by suburban councillors and three Hamilton mountain councillors.
*In April 2015 those 7 suburban councillors (along with Councillor Whitehead) voted to postpone the often delayed ward boundary review.  Fortunately, this vote lost on a tie.
That tie vote means that there is now an opportunity to change ward boundaries.  Contact your elected municipal officials to Make Change.  Tell them those boundaries must respect the important democratic principle of fair representation by population.
*CATCH (Citizens at City Hall) is a volunteer community group that encourages civic participation in Hamilton.  Their articles which were the prime source for the above can be found at



Monday, March 28, 2016

What is Gentrification and What can we do about it?



(This story originally appeared in The Anvil Hamilton`s Topical News Quarterly - December 2015. House prices in the Hamilton area jumped more than any other real estate market in Canada in the past year.)

Good news for some. But on balance this development is something we should be concerned about.


Tenants living in Hamilton's downtown core are being displaced from their homes and communities as an influx of new development and investment continues to reduce the city's affordable housing stock.  Displacement affects tenants' health, access to education, and employment -- resources that tenants need to thrive.  It is called gentrification.


Geography Professor David Ley, writing in the book the Canadian City, had this to say about gentrification.


“Gentrification deserves considerably more attention than it has received in Canada, if for one significant reason.  One of the most serious policy concerns in Canadian cities over the past 15 years has been the non-availability of affordable housing (especially rental units).”

Ley wrote these words nearly thirty years ago (in 1986) regarding a trend that had already been in motion for 15 years. 


What is gentrification?

The term became popular in the 1960’s. British sociologist Ruth Glass used it to describe the phenomenon of young “bohemians” moving into a rundown part of London England.  The bohemians were taking the place of long-standing, blue-collar communities who could no longer afford to live there. Glass saw this as a problem.  However, over time the term gentrification has been replaced by a kinder word “regeneration”   Regeneration seems to suggest that communities are being improved.

We’ll call it gentrification - “the fin is above the water. Below is the rest of the shark." That is how
American writer Rebecca Solnit refers to what has happened in her hometown of San Francisco.  It is now a “hollow city” with an economy where "most of us will be poorer, a few will be far richer, and everything will be faster, more homogenous and more controlled or controllable". (Robert Bevan in the Guardian, February 27, 2014)

The City of Hamilton is somewhat unique as far as gentrification goes. Research that was released earlier this year is illustrative. (A City on the Cusp: Neighbourhood Change in Hamilton since 1970 -
Professor Richard Harris
Richard Harris Jim Dunn, Sarah Wakefield)

Most of us will be familiar with how the decline in manufacturing has impacted our city.  This research takes a look at what deindustrialization and other trends (growth of the service industry, deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, etc.. ) has done to neighbourhoods.

Here is the thrust of their argument.

Historically, Hamilton has been fairly unique in that there has been relative income equality across all its neighbourhoods.  That has changed.  We now have “a marked segregation of the poor and a steady polarization of neighbourhoods.”

Using a measure of income inequality called the Gini coefficient, the authors argue that income inequality has increased in Hamilton more rapidly than any other city in Canada.  The rates of housing poverty (where households spend excessive amounts of income on housing) rival that of cities like Vancouver and Toronto where housing is much more expensive.  With downtown neighbourhoods being gentrified, residents and problems associated with income disparities are moving to Mountain neighbourhoods.

What Can be Done?

Professor Ley’s article cited above hit on some of the policy approaches that can be taken to tackle the problems caused by gentrification. 

Building more affordable housing is one approach.  Government, particularly at the federal level, has shown little interest in this strategy of late. 

Some municipalities, including Hamilton, have tried to retain existing housing through local regulations like demolition controls and restrictions on condominium conversions.   This doesn’t seem to be making much difference. 

Government programs in the seventies designed to preserve and enhance properties like the Neighbourhood Improvement Program (NIP) worked.  Neighbourhood decay may be too far advanced for such initiatives to succeed.

Right to the City (http://righttothecity.org/) and other groups in the United States have put forward the argument that gentrification violates the rights of people who are displaced because they can’t afford increased rents.  The argument is that those rights are guaranteed under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Article 25 of this Declaration asserts that everyone has a right to housing.  Other rights are spelled out.  The Declaration was ratified in 1948 before gentrification was identified.  It will be interesting to see how this human rights approach proceeds.

In addition though, Right to the City and other American groups have developed programs and toolkits for those who are trying to halt the displacement of poor and disadvantaged individuals and families.

Perhaps we can look to these approaches for solutions to the problems gentrification is creating in Hamilton.