Jan. 15, 12:08 EDT
Many properties along the bay shoreline remain empty under Hamilton Port Authority's management
Jim Howlett
The Hamilton Spectator
As someone who has a long history in many projects involving the Hamilton Port Authority (HPA), I find it awkward when newly found CEO Keith Robson lectures our city on how inclusive and responsible the HPA has been with Hamilton's harbour.
Robson states the HPA promoted public access to the harbour by deeding the Windermere Basin to the city for open space use -- a praiseworthy sounding move. Yet all through the 1990s, Brian McHattie (now a Hamilton councillor) and I attended every meeting regarding the basin and the consensus was always that open space was the proper use for it -- then suddenly the HPA announced it was developing the basin as a jet fuel storage centre.
Fortunately, Alderman Chad Collins was able to put a stop to it.
Next, the land Robson says was dedicated as a park on Eastport Drive has been stripped of its amenities and was closed to the public 10 years before Robson arrived in town. If you try to use it today, security guards will ask you to leave.
I am glad to hear the authority state that it actively supports the Remedial Action Plan, but I must remind it that its predecessor, the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners, was the steward of Hamilton's harbour in the years when toxic hotspot Randle Reef appeared. The HPA also selflessly states that it considers itself the owner of any land created by the harbour cleanup -- including, of course, Randle Reef.
Regarding public consultation, the HPA still has much to learn. It is not public consultation to present a fait accompli (done deal) through the media, announce a public meeting for input, receive disapproval from city council, the ministry of the environment, the community council and the editorial board of a newspaper, then proceed with the plan and say you had an "open consultation process in every respect."
Yet this is what happened to the Beach neighbourhood with the asphalt plant owned by Bitumar Inc. Now, an asphalt smell is present on the Beach Strip almost every week and the facility has had a major fire in the past year.
Robson also states that Port Authority land is properly zoned and the city is sending confusing messages to prospective industrial tenants by questioning the appropriateness of the proposed Biox facility.
Perhaps Robson is unaware that Port Authority land does not go through the municipal zoning process. Instead the HPA zones the land itself and tells the city what the classification will be. This is a sure and certain recipe for conflict and has been readily apparent with Bitumar Inc., Clean Soils Inc., the Windermere Basin, and now it seems Biox.
I am, however, pleased to inform the residents around the proposed Biox site that yes, indeed, the port authority has worked its way up to the point of asking for municipal and community input (part of its new charter). But, sadly, it completely ignores that input where significant conflict occurs, claiming the necessity of shipping and navigation.
The HPA also claims to be an economic catalyst. If this were so, it would seem that it has had more than 90 years to prove itself fruitful -- yet many harbour properties have remained empty for decades while Port Authority structural assets have decayed considerably.
Even the marine terminal where it held the "Port Days" festival last year was in such poor shape that grass and weeds were growing out of its leaking, rotted asphalt roof. Likewise the massive marine warehouse on Pier 23 has not received marine traffic since the 1980s, when a rusted steel freighter was moved to it for scrap. Similarly the federal marine terminals on piers 10-14 have not been kept in good repair for at least 15 years and many areas appear to be industrial ghettos.
Yet, if you were to look at harbour assets owned by Stelco or Dofasco you would find substantially better maintenance and repair just by crossing a property line. I could go on.
In the past few years, all port authorities have been told by the federal government that they must now survive by profiting from their assets. In the case of the Hamilton Port Authority, it does not have much in the way of capital funds to invest in economic development, but it does have land -- free land, Hamilton's land, (your land?) and it seems that any tenant is welcome to build anything on HPA land as long as they will sign a lease.
So when you hear that the HPA is trying to acquire and develop the lift bridge, pier and lands around the Ship Canal (currently owned by Transport Canada) for $1, to promote recreational development -- consider why they would want this rare and historic land and whether it would be the best steward of it.
In Toronto and other Great Lakes ports there are movements to disband port authorities and return the assets and profits back to the cities that originally owned them, instead of letting the federal government act as an absentee landlord.
Maybe that should happen here, and we could actually say that this is Hamilton's harbour -- not Ottawa's.
Welcome to Hamilton, Mr. Robson. Please take care of our harbour.
Jim Howlett lives in Hamilton.
Photo 1-
Hamilton Spectator File Photo
An aerial view shows the industrial and port areas of the east harbour to the left of the photo and the now recreation-oriented west harbour to the right.
Photo 2-
Hamilton Spectator File Photo
Would the Hamilton Port Authority be the best steward of the rare and historic land around the Ship Canada lift bridge, pier and lands surrounding it? The property is currently owned by Transport Canada.
Many properties along the bay shoreline remain empty under Hamilton Port Authority's management
Jim Howlett
The Hamilton Spectator
As someone who has a long history in many projects involving the Hamilton Port Authority (HPA), I find it awkward when newly found CEO Keith Robson lectures our city on how inclusive and responsible the HPA has been with Hamilton's harbour.
Robson states the HPA promoted public access to the harbour by deeding the Windermere Basin to the city for open space use -- a praiseworthy sounding move. Yet all through the 1990s, Brian McHattie (now a Hamilton councillor) and I attended every meeting regarding the basin and the consensus was always that open space was the proper use for it -- then suddenly the HPA announced it was developing the basin as a jet fuel storage centre.
Fortunately, Alderman Chad Collins was able to put a stop to it.
Next, the land Robson says was dedicated as a park on Eastport Drive has been stripped of its amenities and was closed to the public 10 years before Robson arrived in town. If you try to use it today, security guards will ask you to leave.
I am glad to hear the authority state that it actively supports the Remedial Action Plan, but I must remind it that its predecessor, the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners, was the steward of Hamilton's harbour in the years when toxic hotspot Randle Reef appeared. The HPA also selflessly states that it considers itself the owner of any land created by the harbour cleanup -- including, of course, Randle Reef.
Regarding public consultation, the HPA still has much to learn. It is not public consultation to present a fait accompli (done deal) through the media, announce a public meeting for input, receive disapproval from city council, the ministry of the environment, the community council and the editorial board of a newspaper, then proceed with the plan and say you had an "open consultation process in every respect."
Yet this is what happened to the Beach neighbourhood with the asphalt plant owned by Bitumar Inc. Now, an asphalt smell is present on the Beach Strip almost every week and the facility has had a major fire in the past year.
Robson also states that Port Authority land is properly zoned and the city is sending confusing messages to prospective industrial tenants by questioning the appropriateness of the proposed Biox facility.
Perhaps Robson is unaware that Port Authority land does not go through the municipal zoning process. Instead the HPA zones the land itself and tells the city what the classification will be. This is a sure and certain recipe for conflict and has been readily apparent with Bitumar Inc., Clean Soils Inc., the Windermere Basin, and now it seems Biox.
I am, however, pleased to inform the residents around the proposed Biox site that yes, indeed, the port authority has worked its way up to the point of asking for municipal and community input (part of its new charter). But, sadly, it completely ignores that input where significant conflict occurs, claiming the necessity of shipping and navigation.
The HPA also claims to be an economic catalyst. If this were so, it would seem that it has had more than 90 years to prove itself fruitful -- yet many harbour properties have remained empty for decades while Port Authority structural assets have decayed considerably.
Even the marine terminal where it held the "Port Days" festival last year was in such poor shape that grass and weeds were growing out of its leaking, rotted asphalt roof. Likewise the massive marine warehouse on Pier 23 has not received marine traffic since the 1980s, when a rusted steel freighter was moved to it for scrap. Similarly the federal marine terminals on piers 10-14 have not been kept in good repair for at least 15 years and many areas appear to be industrial ghettos.
Yet, if you were to look at harbour assets owned by Stelco or Dofasco you would find substantially better maintenance and repair just by crossing a property line. I could go on.
In the past few years, all port authorities have been told by the federal government that they must now survive by profiting from their assets. In the case of the Hamilton Port Authority, it does not have much in the way of capital funds to invest in economic development, but it does have land -- free land, Hamilton's land, (your land?) and it seems that any tenant is welcome to build anything on HPA land as long as they will sign a lease.
So when you hear that the HPA is trying to acquire and develop the lift bridge, pier and lands around the Ship Canal (currently owned by Transport Canada) for $1, to promote recreational development -- consider why they would want this rare and historic land and whether it would be the best steward of it.
In Toronto and other Great Lakes ports there are movements to disband port authorities and return the assets and profits back to the cities that originally owned them, instead of letting the federal government act as an absentee landlord.
Maybe that should happen here, and we could actually say that this is Hamilton's harbour -- not Ottawa's.
Welcome to Hamilton, Mr. Robson. Please take care of our harbour.
Jim Howlett lives in Hamilton.
Photo 1-
Hamilton Spectator File Photo
An aerial view shows the industrial and port areas of the east harbour to the left of the photo and the now recreation-oriented west harbour to the right.
Photo 2-
Hamilton Spectator File Photo
Would the Hamilton Port Authority be the best steward of the rare and historic land around the Ship Canada lift bridge, pier and lands surrounding it? The property is currently owned by Transport Canada.