Today is the last day for people to provide their input on a change in policy at the CRTC. The policy in question refers to the fact that currently it is illegal to broadcast untruthful and misleading information as news. This goes back to the days when holocaust denier Ernst Zundel published and distributed the pamphlets, "Did 6 Million People Really Die?"
Somebody had concerns that such lies could be as easily spread on TV as Zundel did through pamphlets. So at some point, the CRTC made the decision that it would not allow the broadcasting of such lies to be reported as news. The policy also forces journalists to confirm allegations before actually reporting them. So what's next? The relaxing of libel laws in Canada as well?
So what is this really about? This is about that great Sun TV News project, otherwise known as Fox News North, and their ability to be able to broadcast what amounts to gossip and innuendo. And people of the conservative influence have the nerve to ask what has happened to TV. You are what you watch. While I'm watching channels like Discovery, Oasis, NASA and other great educational channels, a lot of the others are watching shows like "When Animals Attack", "American Idol" and other "reality" shows.
And how about those stupid reality shows? Do you really care who will win "American Idol" anymore? Does watching some douchebag win "Survivor" make you any richer? We are mired in dreams of "freedom" and "wealth" and we are told that we need to buy a ticket if we want to win. Knowledge is power people and if you don't have it, your ignorance can be manipulated. And that's the real problem.
It's time to ask ourselves what kind of a society we want to be. Do we want to go down this path of dishonesty, innuendo and exaggeration or do we want a society that values honesty and facts. Either way, I don't see this ending well.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Transparency (Lesson 3)
I kind of had two lessons in one in the first lesson, which was to get stakeholders involved in the process. The second lesson was that the Tiger-Cats Football Club are indeed a stakeholder, since they have a vested interest in the stadium, by virtue of the fact that certain aspects of the stadium could make or break them.
So how did the selection committee recommend the west harbour? Did you read any reports? I don't think anybody paid attention until the HTCFC mused that the west harbour location would not work for them. And when did they say this? It was February 18th of last year They cited accessibility, parking and visibility issues in the following month and promised a report to put those concerns on paper.
We also know that it was in May of last year that the Tiger-Cats publicly announced that they will not play at a stadium located at the west harbour and proposed a facilitator to look at other sites. So now we ask ourselves "what other sites were looked at?"
The problem is that we don't know. All that we know is that Confederation Park was taken off the list. But other than Confederation Park and West Harbour, what other locations were looked at? We don't know and that's another aspect of this process that has bothered a lot of people. We never had the chance to discuss what options there were. They just seemed to have come out with the West Harbour and we don't know how and why they came up with that, other than the fact that it's where they wanted it to be.
Of course people don't generally know what happens in committee meetings so nobody knows what was discussed and when. This committee is supposed to find a good place for a stadium that works for everybody. If I didn't know any better, I would have considered the "other options," straw men. They were just there to be eliminated. The level of ambiguity in the description of the so-called sites say so.
With the absence of this information, one can only conclude that the West Harbour was indeed the site of choice since day one, but nobody can really explain why this was the best site and how they came to that conclusion.
The perception I have is that a certain someone had delusions of grandeur and decided that building something to create a lasting legacy that would spawn the ascension of his "great" name. The problem was that this person was too naive to consider that he couldn't just turn into a great visionary overnight. He lacked the dynamic personality to even sell this vision, which really wasn't his to begin with. Moses, he wasn't.
So the lesson here is, if you want people to trust the decision that you made and that it was a good decision, perhaps it would be good idea to have the data to back it up, otherwise you leave the impression that was left when they did choose the West Harbour - not a very good one.
So how did the selection committee recommend the west harbour? Did you read any reports? I don't think anybody paid attention until the HTCFC mused that the west harbour location would not work for them. And when did they say this? It was February 18th of last year They cited accessibility, parking and visibility issues in the following month and promised a report to put those concerns on paper.
We also know that it was in May of last year that the Tiger-Cats publicly announced that they will not play at a stadium located at the west harbour and proposed a facilitator to look at other sites. So now we ask ourselves "what other sites were looked at?"
The problem is that we don't know. All that we know is that Confederation Park was taken off the list. But other than Confederation Park and West Harbour, what other locations were looked at? We don't know and that's another aspect of this process that has bothered a lot of people. We never had the chance to discuss what options there were. They just seemed to have come out with the West Harbour and we don't know how and why they came up with that, other than the fact that it's where they wanted it to be.
Of course people don't generally know what happens in committee meetings so nobody knows what was discussed and when. This committee is supposed to find a good place for a stadium that works for everybody. If I didn't know any better, I would have considered the "other options," straw men. They were just there to be eliminated. The level of ambiguity in the description of the so-called sites say so.
With the absence of this information, one can only conclude that the West Harbour was indeed the site of choice since day one, but nobody can really explain why this was the best site and how they came to that conclusion.
The perception I have is that a certain someone had delusions of grandeur and decided that building something to create a lasting legacy that would spawn the ascension of his "great" name. The problem was that this person was too naive to consider that he couldn't just turn into a great visionary overnight. He lacked the dynamic personality to even sell this vision, which really wasn't his to begin with. Moses, he wasn't.
So the lesson here is, if you want people to trust the decision that you made and that it was a good decision, perhaps it would be good idea to have the data to back it up, otherwise you leave the impression that was left when they did choose the West Harbour - not a very good one.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Stakeholders (Lesson One)
stakeholder: a person or group that has an investment, share, or interest in something, as a business or industry.
(one meaning taken from context; source: Dictionary.com)
Whenever there is a decision to be made on a major city project, there will be people who will be effected in some way shape or form as the result of this decision. The decision to be made could affect a business by way of changes in profits or losses. It would concern a homeowner who is concerned with the effect on his or her property. It could affect anyone in anyway depending on its location, the length of time required and the actions to be taken. The fact is that any decision that is made will have some sort of effect on certain people and for that reason they should be consulted before a decision is made. They are called stakeholders.
The Tiger-Cats serve a purpose to our city. Without them, who would know that there is a city in Canada called "Hamilton" and this city is the biggest producer of steel in that country? In the best of times, we live vicariously in their successes and in the worst of times, we disown them. It's the ultimate love-hate relationship. It's just funny how the Tiger-Cats seem to stimulate more interest and television coverage in their 8 team league than the Hamilton Bulldogs do in their 30 team league.
During the stadium debate, there was some flawed logic that the Tiger-Cats were only tenants and should take whatever they're given, not understanding that such actions carry an effect on the Tiger-Cats, which they believed to be detrimental to their interests. That mentality was widespread with those who advocated for the West Harbour. My position has always been consistent on this one. The stadium had to be a site that both the Tiger-Cats and the city could agree on. For either to go it alone, would be disastrous for both. The stadium location had to work for Tiger-Cats as much as it had to work for the city. By that token, the Tiger-Cats had a stake in its location.
And it is with this understanding that the Tiger-Cats should not be looked at as just tenants. They are stakeholders as well, with a vested interest in the location of the stadium as it could make or break their fortunes. Yes, they are a business and they've had cash flow issues for a while now. But right now they carry the name of our city across the country and on the NFL network in the US when they play a Friday nighter. So being the team representing our city, they should have more input into where the stadium goes and if they are going to make a long term commitment to the city, they should know what they need for them to succeed. At the same time, they know their customers and what they want. And when they talk about a driveway to driveway experience, their customers are asking for a little certainty where parking is concerned. They don't want to go through the inconvenience of finding out whose front yard they could park in. So the urbanites pulled for a location that can be accessed through public transit, while the regional fans pulled for a location where they didn't have to play a guessing game on where to park.
When the city began the process of finding a location for their stadium, they should have rounded up every possible stakeholder, locked them up in a room and not let them out until they have informed us that they have come up with possible sites for the stadium, to eventually bring three choices to the table for the city to discuss and initiate a study on each candidate site. From there, the findings are reviewed and a decision is made. And most of all, it is done TRANSPARENTLY!
But that's not what the city did. The city had their minds made up and never discussed alternatives. They didn't listen to their biggest stakeholder a lot of whom had many concerns that their customers brought to them. It was the "tenant" mentality that kept things on mute. The process itself wasn't transparent at all. And when the time came to discuss alternatives, the city pushed on with their plan, dismissing the mediation process that HostCo initiated. There's a fine line between decisiveness and stubbornness, and in this case decisiveness refers to the ability to make a good decision, in consideration of all possible factors. The city, having their minds already set, chose to be stubborn and almost lost the stadium and the Tiger-Cats.
(one meaning taken from context; source: Dictionary.com)
Whenever there is a decision to be made on a major city project, there will be people who will be effected in some way shape or form as the result of this decision. The decision to be made could affect a business by way of changes in profits or losses. It would concern a homeowner who is concerned with the effect on his or her property. It could affect anyone in anyway depending on its location, the length of time required and the actions to be taken. The fact is that any decision that is made will have some sort of effect on certain people and for that reason they should be consulted before a decision is made. They are called stakeholders.
The Tiger-Cats serve a purpose to our city. Without them, who would know that there is a city in Canada called "Hamilton" and this city is the biggest producer of steel in that country? In the best of times, we live vicariously in their successes and in the worst of times, we disown them. It's the ultimate love-hate relationship. It's just funny how the Tiger-Cats seem to stimulate more interest and television coverage in their 8 team league than the Hamilton Bulldogs do in their 30 team league.
During the stadium debate, there was some flawed logic that the Tiger-Cats were only tenants and should take whatever they're given, not understanding that such actions carry an effect on the Tiger-Cats, which they believed to be detrimental to their interests. That mentality was widespread with those who advocated for the West Harbour. My position has always been consistent on this one. The stadium had to be a site that both the Tiger-Cats and the city could agree on. For either to go it alone, would be disastrous for both. The stadium location had to work for Tiger-Cats as much as it had to work for the city. By that token, the Tiger-Cats had a stake in its location.
And it is with this understanding that the Tiger-Cats should not be looked at as just tenants. They are stakeholders as well, with a vested interest in the location of the stadium as it could make or break their fortunes. Yes, they are a business and they've had cash flow issues for a while now. But right now they carry the name of our city across the country and on the NFL network in the US when they play a Friday nighter. So being the team representing our city, they should have more input into where the stadium goes and if they are going to make a long term commitment to the city, they should know what they need for them to succeed. At the same time, they know their customers and what they want. And when they talk about a driveway to driveway experience, their customers are asking for a little certainty where parking is concerned. They don't want to go through the inconvenience of finding out whose front yard they could park in. So the urbanites pulled for a location that can be accessed through public transit, while the regional fans pulled for a location where they didn't have to play a guessing game on where to park.
When the city began the process of finding a location for their stadium, they should have rounded up every possible stakeholder, locked them up in a room and not let them out until they have informed us that they have come up with possible sites for the stadium, to eventually bring three choices to the table for the city to discuss and initiate a study on each candidate site. From there, the findings are reviewed and a decision is made. And most of all, it is done TRANSPARENTLY!
But that's not what the city did. The city had their minds made up and never discussed alternatives. They didn't listen to their biggest stakeholder a lot of whom had many concerns that their customers brought to them. It was the "tenant" mentality that kept things on mute. The process itself wasn't transparent at all. And when the time came to discuss alternatives, the city pushed on with their plan, dismissing the mediation process that HostCo initiated. There's a fine line between decisiveness and stubbornness, and in this case decisiveness refers to the ability to make a good decision, in consideration of all possible factors. The city, having their minds already set, chose to be stubborn and almost lost the stadium and the Tiger-Cats.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Top 5 Priorities for the City
As suggested by the blogger of "My Stoney Creek", here's what I believe to be the top 5 priorities for this city:
By the way: I will be rolling out some lessons the city should have learned when the stadium debate started going south one year ago. Perhaps future councilors will learn these lessons so the city can actually move forward for a change.
- Taking Ownership of the Downtown Core
- The city needs to stop mulling about it and start getting to work in planning the downtown core. Since the inception of this incarnation, no mayor has shown any vision at all in the future look and feel of the downtown core. Furthermore, it seems that we're waiting for buildings to be on the verge of collapse before something is done. The city needs to run building inspection blitzes all over the downtown core and start expropriating properties that are horribly neglected so we can get some new buildings in their place.
- Repair Infrastructure Before Things Fall Apart
- Do we really need to wait until water mains break before we get them fixed? We need some sort of a way to determine at what point some preventative maintenance is necessary, rather than waiting for the water main to break. We have sidewalks to fix, roads that need potholes filled and some roads even need a complete overhaul. The city needs to start becoming proactive with its infrastructure.
- Economic Development - Get some New Businesses in Town!
- Currently, the downtown core has a vacancy rate that is staggering. We need to lure businesses into the downtown core and the city needs to start flexing their downtown stewardship muscles to help businesses have a downtown core that they can be proud to do business in. Has the city ever tried to convince a bank to move their head offices here?
- Debate the Transit Plan and Consider all Configurations
- It's nice to know that we're talking about it and we're thinking about it, but we really haven't had a good debate on not just the LRT and BRT plans, but other rapid transit options. An elevated system could have more value than a street level LRT system, but as we've learned from the stadium debate, it is better to go in with the knowledge that you have looked and weighed all the options and are prepared to explain why one option is better than the other. Sure everybody's doing LRT's. But wouldn't it be nice to have someone thinking outside the box on this one?
- Get the West Harbour Developed
- Now that we know that there won't be a stadium there, we need to move forward in planning the waterfront. After all, the city has spent considerable money already in expropriations so they have to do something there.
By the way: I will be rolling out some lessons the city should have learned when the stadium debate started going south one year ago. Perhaps future councilors will learn these lessons so the city can actually move forward for a change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)