Public votes overwhelmingly for no boundary expansion
The city has released the results of the July survey on growth options. It drew over 18,000 responses with more than 90 percent voting for the “no boundary expansion”. That is a stunning repudiation of the so-called “ambitious density” strategy recommended by planning staff that got less than six percent support. Nearly 4 percent of respondents chose to write in their own ideas.
The rejected “ambitious density” option would see thousands of acres of prime farmland re-designated for future residential subdivisions in Elfrida and other agricultural areas south of the current urban area. Most of these rural lands have been bought by major developers in the expectation that Hamilton will continue to favour greenfield development.
Support for the no boundary expansion option was extremely strong across all parts of the city. It ranged from 88 percent in upper Stoney Creek (ward 9) to over 96 percent in both east Hamilton (ward 4) and Dundas (ward 13).
Ward 13 had the highest participation in the survey with more than 1900 residents submitting their choice. This ward includes a large slice of rural lands extending into Flamborough. Over 93 percent of the city’s mainly rural ward 11 (Glanbrook including Binbrook) also supported the no boundary expansion choice
Some results don’t reflect the current positions on the growth strategy of the respective ward councillors. In Ancaster, for example, Lloyd Ferguson is a vocal opponent of the boundary freeze but 93 percent of his participating constituents selected that option. On the other hand, in Waterdown where Judi Partridge has declared support for no boundary expansion, that’s also the position of 93 percent of her residents.
It isn’t clear how the planning and economic development department will respond to the poll results. To this point the department has officially maintained that a boundary freeze is not a possible path to meet the new rules and requirements imposed by the Ford provincial government. Their report only says that “the purpose of the mail out survey was to further inform Council of the preferences of the City constituents.”
On the other hand, input from the public is touted as very important by city officials. In February, the planners conducted an on-line discussion and survey on the growth strategy that drew only 150-200 participants and on that basis staff recommended the “ambitious density” option that has now been decisively rejected by the public.
The February consultation specifically excluded the no boundary expansion option. A public outcry and over 50 verbal delegations and 150 letters to council at the end of March succeeded in forcing the mail-in survey that added the no boundary expansion option so overwhelming endorsed by the July survey.
The current timetable calls for staff to make their next growth strategy recommendations on Monday October 25. The report says on that date “staff will be presenting the findings of the Land Needs Assessment Peer Review, the final Land Needs Assessment report, and the results of the ‘How Should Hamilton Grow’ evaluation to the General Issues Committee.” It further states that “staff will be reviewing the input received from public through the Urban Growth Survey in preparation of the ... staff report.”
