The Complete Disruption Option

Vincent J. Curtis

22 Nov 21

RE: This is not a no-growth option.  A news cum editorial piece in the Hamilton Spectator 22 Nov 21.

You have to wonder if reality ever intrudes into the minds of the ideologues who think the no boundary expansion option is the way to go.  No, I’m not going to rehearse my expansion causing the melting of polar icecaps jibe.  If it’s a growth option, where is that growth going to take place?

A recent article in the Spectator showed all the vacant land available for re-development within the current urban boundary.  Most of it is in the lower city, so let’s think about the effects of adding 100,000 to 200,000 more people to the lower city.

Can the infrastructure handle that large an increase in population?  Can the old water pipes and sewers handle the increased demand of fifty to one hundred percent larger population?  Can the streets handle the additional parking and traffic volume?

The answers are undoubtedly no.  This means that the infrastructure in the entire lower city will have to be upgraded.  The resulting construction will cause decades of disruption to the accustomed life of the people in the lower city.  Streets everywhere will need to be torn up, and it’s not going to stop.  The main east-west arteries won’t be able to handle the additional traffic without constant traffic jams.  I’ll wager the infrastructure costs of the high-disruption option will be more than building new on undeveloped land.  That’s one reason to develop undeveloped land: the disruption is minimal and the infrastructure costs are known and reasonable.

But Hamiltonians can console themselves that this is condign punishment for being so evil.  They’re evil because they’re alive, and because they live in an advanced, western civilization.

-30-