They're "overwhelming" underwhelms

Vincent J. Curtis

18 Sept 21

RE: Overwhelming survey response to freeze Hamilton’s urban boundary Hamilton Spectator 18 Sept 21.

Let’s disregard for the moment the fallacy of an “overwhelming” survey response, which required people to return a survey.  Hint: it’s a form of “survivor bias,” and only those fiercely interested in the matter actually respond.  The actual overwhelming response is indifference to the issue.

However, Hamilton is going to have to find space to accommodate a 50 percent increase in population in the next thirty years.  If you rely on “densification,” it means that every other house in Hamilton will have to be duplexed to meet the demand.  The homeless crisis will only get worse as the cost of housing skyrockets and the number of poor increase in numbers with the growing population.

It seems grossly undemocratic to say that 16,000 people should decide the future of 236,000, who, if they could vote, would vote to have a middle class home like most people in Hamilton do today.

The arguments against expanding the urban boundary are that valuable farm land would be turned over to housing, and the polar ice caps will melt.  The land in question is no longer farmed, and never will be again because it is already owned by developers in anticipation of the need for new housing.  It’s no wonder most Hamiltonians are indifferent, not wanting to get involved in an issue where progressive viciousness and vindictiveness rules.  Oh, the ice caps won’t melt.

The consequences of denying land for new developments are well-known, and they’re not good.

-30-