What's next goats?

Let me explain. The quote came from Ward 7 Councillor Scott Duvall at Hamilton City Council. The issue? Urban chickens. Yep they're back on the radar. But before I flesh out the Councillor's quote the larger issue for council was approving a new  Responsible Animal  Ownership Bylaw, and they did with one very significant change. There will be a limit to the number of pets a household may own, not an unlimited number as recommended by staff and accepted by the planning committee. That number is now 4. So within the 8 wards of the old City of Hamilton where households were restricted to two pets, the more the merrier. In most of the rest of the new Hamilton the limit had already been four. Many councillors spoke about the calls and e mails they have been receiving from constituents wondering if they had lost their marbles discussing unlimited. Well unlimited is out, the number four is in. Now the chicken issue. Here's the context. At committee there was a movement to let staff do the research and let the committee make an informed decision for there are other jurisdictions who are allowing the return of chickens to an urban environment. Then the tide turned when Ward 14's Rob Pasuta our guest tomorrow on Cable 14's Council Edition decided that in the end he would not be voting for such an introduction of chickens in Hamilton so why waste staff's time. But at council he supported the side that wanted the information saying he would still vote no on the issue but wanted at the very least through the report education that would inform urban citizens on the complexities of chickens in the city. In the end council voted 9 to 6 to let staff do the research to allow  council to make what Ward 1's Brian McHattie called and we quote "decisions that our evidence based". Urban chickens will now be studied by staff with a report to come back during the third quarter of the year. Oh by the way as you can imagine from the title of this piece, this is where the quote from Councillor Duvall came from. As he was voting no to a study and a waste of staff's time he wondered out loud and we quote, "what's next, goats, emus, ostriches" It got a chuckle. For the record voting for further study were counillors  Jackson,Collins, Merulla, Morelli, Farr, McHattie, Johnson, Pasuta and Partridge. Voting against Mayor Bob Bratina, and councillors Whitehead, Duvall, Clark, Pearson and Ferguson.
On to the very emotional debate over eight beds to be moved from Charlton House to a property owned by the new partnership of Lynwood Charlton at 121 Augusta. At planning committee staff recommended that the request to alter zoning to allow 121 Augusta to be within 3 hundred metres of the next closest Residential Care facility be waived, be rejected. It was. At council a motion to defer from the Councillor from Ward 2 where the debate rages on was accepted on a 13 to 2 vote. There will now be further interaction between the city and the proprietors to see if there is another property  to move these 8 beds that accommodate 8 teenage girls who suffer from mental disorders into, that does not impact on the density of such homes and half way houses that dot the inner city. The issue will return April 11th to council. Councillor Brad Clark who had experience helping to write legislation regarding this type of facility during his time at Queen's Park made an impassioned plea not to defer but in fact to overturn the planning committee's recommendation. Indeed and we quote he said "I'll stake my life on it, this will not be a problem". Only Clark and Pearson were opposed to the motion to defer. Again we have not heard the last of this. Also remember as I pointed out in an earlier column next month the city will move to divest itself of the current Charlton House where the 8 beds are located because it is as staff described it "crumbling". Renovations and upgrades to the tune of 1.2 million are required for this home, a structure owned by the City of Hamilton. Something has to give.
Finally amongst a number of "Notices of Motion", this one from Councillor Jason Farr who wants city staff to "be directed to formally propose the City Hall second tower site to the Hamilton Wentworth District School Board for a nominal long term land lease fee and undertake discussions with the Board on their requirements. You might be going "huh" right about now. An explanation. The original plans for Hamilton City Hall as designed by Stanley Roscoe in 1960 discussed a second tower to be constructed south of the current main building. In other words on the second level parking lot over the garage across from Central School. Umm taking my reporters cap off and inserting opinion, just who would build this building? If it's the school board how might a new tower compare in cost to what the Board is contemplating, which is to build a new home on the central mountain? It would likely cost more but that's just a guess. How important is it to the downtown to keep the board and it's employees there as McMaster moves on to the existing property at Bay and Main? Good question. My preference is to keep all those white collar jobs downtown as McMaster introduces even more people to our sidewalks, restaurants and cafes. Cost will likely determine what happens next, but it's definetely something to watch for.