300 meter Separation Between Truth and Lies

[Mahesh P. Butani]

Two very different issues around Hamilton's radial separation bylaw are being conflated between here and here, which obfuscates critical issues of 'intent' that require closer public scrutiny.

 

One is that of Charlton House and its proposed move to the former mill at 121 Augusta, from its current location at 56 Charlton Avenue, which is an older issue.

 

And the other a more recent issue of the '300 meter radial separation by-law' and the legal challenge it could face on grounds of Human Rights violation.

 

Map of 56 Charlton House and 121 Augusta Street location.

 

What is crumbling?

 

The projected cost of moving Charlton House to Augusta Street involves renovations at 121 Augusta to the tune of $700,000. 

 

Does anyone know as to what the actual cost of this build-out is presently, and who is bearing the cost of this renovations and the move?  Any escalations including the move itself from Charlton to Augusta would add to the cost, putting the final figure close to a million dollars or more.

 

Meanwhile, it is claimed that the cost of renovating the Charlton House is $1.2 Million. There are no detailed cost breakdowns available publicly, which appear to be highly ludicrous considering that the property is visibly not in the state of neglect as is publicly claimed.

 

56 Charlton Street is owned by the City of Hamilton - which implies that by insurance and bylaw requirements alone, this building presently ought to be in a habitable condition, and that means not being in the absurd state of disrepair as claimed. This is borne by the fact that it is currently occupied.

56 Charlton Street - "Charlton House" - Does this appear to be "literally crumbling"? 

 

The interior pictures of Charlton House published in Hamilton Spectator, Jun 2011, belies the claims:

 

"it is literally crumbling. The roof leaks, the electrical and plumbing systems are in desperate need 

of repair and rodents are chewing through the walls and closets."

 

 

If a private owner had a building in the state of disrepair as described above, it would have been promptly vacated and shut down. Buildings of this vintage and occupancy do grow old and settle, sometimes unevenly and roofs leak too. But they simply do not crumble on their own. Installing a new steel-roof on the entire house would cost less than seventy-five thousand dollars. 

 

 

Take a walk down there sometime... what you see, might surprise you!

 

Even if one were to presume that the house is crumbling, and factored the grossly inflated renovation projections of Charlton House, there are still no significant savings for the City at play here to indulge such a move.

 

The logic that the City would benefit from the sale of a vacant Charlton House would appear absurd from the vivid description of the state of disrepair of the property. Assuming that the pictures above are lying, there is no developer in his right mind who would agree to pay a big sum for a crumbling house!  In fact if the condition is indeed as it is strongly claimed to be, the sale value would hardly amount to anything - but that of the land alone, minus the demolition costs. So how much would the city really have expected to fetch from the anticipated sale of a vacant and crumbling Charlton House?

 

 

Here is the real rub:

 "The centre, she says, was forced to reduce its capacity — from 25 girls in the early 1970s to a maximum of eight today, with two spots reserved for CAS cases. Alternatively, it boosted its number of staff — from two house parents in 1961 to more than 20 highly qualified social workers and support staff in the residential treatment program at present — in order to keep up with the girls’ escalating needs."  

 

“The thrill of getting something new, clean, shining and up to date is quite exciting,” she says. “I don’t think there will be too many broken hearts leaving Charlton Hall.”

 

"Of all the girls around the table, current resident Nicole will likely feel the effects of the move the most. “I’m sad to leave this house,” the 17-year-old admits. “But I saw the floor plan and it looks amazing. It’s not institutional, it looks like a home. And that’s what Charlton Hall really means.”

 

"Provided the city approves the centre’s rezoning application, the $700,000 renovation of the former mill at 121 Augusta will move ahead later this year, with construction expected to wrap up in early 2012."

 

"After 50 years and more than 1,000 residents, Charlton Hall is embarking on a new partnership. In October it will amalgamate with Lynwood Hall, another local children’s mental health service, to form the Lynwood-Charlton Centre* — a comprehensive organization that will offer residential, day treatment and community-based programs to more than 350 boys, girls and teens each year."

So what are the real reasons for the move?

 

Is it really the crumbling Charlton House?  Or is it the creation of a brand new corporate entity following a merger which may have more ambitious goals of expansion?

 

Or very simply -- is it really the glitzy high-rise condo development bounded by Charlton, Bay, Robinson and Park streets, which is only a stone throw away from Charlton House that has triggered this socially correct move-out?  

 

The real media story in a more saner world would have been about the "move-out" from a richer neighbourhood and not about the "move-in" to a struggling neighbourhood.

 

But we are in the kind of world we are in, so what exactly do you think is the reason behind this planned move? All self-respecting Hamiltonian need to answer this question honestly for themselves - if they do stand for truth, transparency and collective social good in our community.

 

Remember, this proposed move will end up costing the city far more in social terms than financial terms - much more than if a revised rational estimate for renovating Charlton House is sought, and a phased renovation is carried out without disrupting the occupants or the operations.

 

The community on either side of the James Street divide will continue to be traumatized, until we come to terms with what really makes our community sick, and what drives such mindless decisions.

 

In the end this was never about good reasoning? It was hardly about zoning. For it clearly appears in reality to be nothing more than the continuing class-warfare in Hamilton where its middle-class neighbourhoods have been turned into poor red-lined districts by the complicity of a few. And such districts continue to get dumped upon, while the richer neighbourhoods continue on their merry way spreading guilt and pontificating shamelessly about fairness, charity and God's will, while back-patting each other for getting famous on the poverty bandwagon, while drumbeating the cause of the poor and disenfranchised.

 

When red-lined districts stand up for their human rights, they are quickly dubbed by beneficiary organizations as "those NIMBYies" and castigated or guilted publicly for not caring about the downtrodden, unwell or those struggling in our city. These noble organizations who are adept at spreading such guilt are even faster at closing ranks to disingenuously use the human rights law itself to challenge the only rational piece of regulation this city has, which protects its red-lined districts from further abuse.

 

So, has the Lynwood-Charlton Centre really been telling the whole truth to the community in which it works and plays?

 

Given the recent history of Mission Service's blatant obfuscation and deceptions on Wentworth Street North - where a stealth consolidation of their operations and expansion are underway in the guise of a "Learning Centre" -- there are all the more reasons to be cynical of the real intent of the new Lynwood-Charlton Centre's move to 121 Augusta Street.

 

If Lynwood-Charlton Centre was at all serious about community engagement their executives would have very simply published the projected costs of repairs at Charlton House along with their annual report and let the community decide on the best course of action; or even entered into a "Good Neighbour Community Contract"  to be upfront with their intent and goals. Or for that matter, even have taken steps to make peace with the community that it plans to move into, rather than behave like an adversary by keeping things secretive and opaque and riding the Human Rights violation wave.

 

The ultimate slap on the face of the community is when you see the image of what is being projected into the minds of the young girls in their care:

 

 

 "But I saw the floor plan and it looks amazing. It’s not institutional, it looks like a home." ~  Nicole

 

We know the community is not being told the whole truth behind the move, but in light of the comment above and the reality of the new building and the deplorable state of the building adjacent to it -- are even the girls being told the truth of where they are being moved to?

 

If the move does materialize into what is clearly a highly oppressive looking building - realistically what type of condos are expected to come up next door in the future? 

  

And if by chance in the next few years, the building next door is developed into a glitzy high-rise condo, where will these girls be moved to next? and what grounds would exist to do so then? Possibly, the constant sound of moving trains and vibrating floors which by then would have scientifically been proven to negatively impact the fragile mental health of the girls?  

 

In the end it is always about dollars and cents... isn't it? Just wrap up greed and avarice in guilt, paint a story of traumatized girls and the tired, hard-working social-workers, throw in a couple of sepia prints to show the glorious history of good deeds from the past.... and even God for good measure, and walla  -- the pricey land in a tree lined neighbourhood is finally freed up for a planned higher purpose!  

 

And if all else fails there is always the cry of "Human Rights violation" with a corporate executive from Toronto to back up with stern legalese -- that is sure to deter the huddled masses of Hamilton.

 

The truth is they will once again get away with their cowboy approach to community development, if you let them, by feeling guilty about just saying no.

 

These girls deserve a better home. They don't deserve this charade.

 

 

Mahesh P. Butani

 

...

Update Jan 27, 2012: 

• Declaration of Surplus Property:  52-56 Charlton Ave W -- Sept 11, 2008
• Procedural Bylaw 04-299 -- Nov 24, 2004
  

• See comments at: The Hamiltonian.net -- Jan 24-present, 2012

• Building Condition Assessment Report:  52-56 Charlton Ave W -- Oct, 2011 
• Planning Committee Recommendations:  1 (e) - This relocation will allow the City to dispose of a surplus property
                                                                              asset at 52-56 Charlton Avenue West. (Zoning application ZAR-11-034)

...

• Lynwood Hall Child Family Centre - Memorandum -- Sep, Aug, 2011
• Amendment to Zoning - Planning & Ec Dev Recommendations: 121 Augusta Street -- Jan 17, 2012
• Letter from OHRC to Mayor/Council:  Ms Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner --  Jan 24, 2012