red hill creek expressway - final

8/4/2019 Red Hill Creek Expressway - Final

1/28

The Urban Growth Machine

Vs.

The Red Hill Valley:

A Case Study

Prepared for:

Roger Keil&

Richard Milgrom

ENVS 6173: Politics and PlanningFall Semester

Prepared by:

Marty CollierMES Candidate (Planning)

Student #206358527

Faculty of Environmental StudiesYork University

Toronto, Ontario

December 21, 2003


2/28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. Introduction 1

2. The Expressway: Environmental, Social and Economic Context and Impacts 2

3. The Expressway: Stakeholder Analysis 63.1 Red Hill Creek Expressway Proponents 6

3.1.1 Government 7

3.1.2 Business Associations, Industry Sectors and Individuals 9

3.2 Red Hill Creek Expressway Opponents 143.2.1 Community Groups and Non-Governmental Associations 15

3.2.2 Haudenosaunee Confederacy and Six Nations 153.2.3 Politicians, Parties and Agencies 16

4. Conclusion 16

Appendices: History of the Red Hill Creek Expressway 18

Community Groups and NGOs Opposing the Expressway 22

References 23

MAPS and PHOTOS

Page

Map 1: Red Hill Valley and Proposes Expressway 3

Photo 1 & 2: Green Hill Avenue Area: Before and After Construction 3


3/28

The Urban Growth Machine vs. The Red Hill Valley: A Case Study Marty Collier

Page 1 of 1

1. Introduction

More than most urban areas, the new City of Hamilton is a conurbation of contradictions.

Located at the west end of Lake Ontario, the municipality of 500,000 people is nestled above and

below the internationally recognized Niagara Escarpment. Its many parks, open spaces and

agricultural lands provide a green backdrop to the environmentally questionable industrial areas,

abandoned brownfields, declining downtown and sprawling, car dependent suburbs it is better

known for.

At the east end of the city, the Red Hill Valley (RHV) cuts a linear swath from the top of the

Niagara Escarpment in the south, through established neigbourhoods and the industrial core, to

Lake Ontario in the north. Incorporating Carolinian remnants and the Citys last free flowing

creek, the RHV watershed provides an urban refuge to a diverse range of trees, rare plants,

endangered mammals, birds and amphibians (Green, 2003). Historically, it is the ancestral home

to the Mississauga and Haudonoshenee peoples and today is the last significant green space for

east end Hamilton citizens. Yet, despite the cultural and natural importance of this unique

parkland, the RHV is currently being clear-cut to pave the way for the Red Hill Creek

Expressway (RHCE).

The battle for and against the RHCE has been raging in Hamilton and beyond for over 50 years.1

It has involved all levels of government and related agencies, industry and business associations,

non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community groups, First Nations peoples and

citizens from all walks of life. There have been countless highway proposals made, assessments

planned, exemption orders declared, permits denied, lawsuits announced, and appeals heard

while provincial funding has been established, revoked and reinstated. While those who oppose

the RHCE have combined substantive economic and environmental research with

communications and media events to sway public opinion, growth propaganda, fear mongering

and baseless allegations have been utilized by pro-expressway supporters.

The RHCE represents a classic case with which to apply Harvey Molotchs urban growth

machine theory: Coalitions of land-based elites, tied to the economic possibilities of places,

drive urban politics in their quest to expand the local economy and accumulate wealth at the

1 It is recommended that the reader refer to the history of the Red Hill Creek Expressway presented in Appendix 1 toget an idea of the political complexities surrounding this infrastructure project.


4/28


Page 2 of 2

expense of local neighbourhoods (Jonas and Wilson, 1999). This paper seeks to demonstrate

how the politics and planning behind this $225 million expressway serves Hamiltons wealthy

elite while leaving citizens to become more impoverished socially, environmentally and

economically.

2. The Expressway: Environmental, Social and Economic Context and Impacts

The RHV and the proposed RHCE is intimately connected to the City of Hamiltons past and

future. Two hundred years ago, the RHV was one natural watershed component in a region

described as all forest (McIsaac et al, 2003). Due to two centuries of urban expansion and

population growth, it is now the Citys biggest park and last natural wildlife corridor stretching

eight kilometers from the Niagara Escarpment to Lake Ontario (see Figure 1, Page 3). The 700

hectare remnant of Carolinian forest contains over 47,000 trees and 450 plant species, twenty of

which are considered rare in Hamilton. Combined with the Citys last free flowing creek and

Class 1 wetlands, the environmentally significant habitat provides a home to 25 mammals

(including the nationally rare Southern Flying Squirrel), 15 species of reptiles and amphibians,

18 to 24 fish species, 200 invertebrate species and 177 migratory and water birds (Hamilton

Naturalists Club, 2003; FRHV, 2003).

On a human level, the RHV provides environmental, cultural and recreational services. The

parks trees help with Hamiltons air quality which has been measured as one of the worst in

Ontario (City of Hamilton, 2001). Over 30 archeological sites in and around the RHV have been

found, including an 11,000 year old site that is the first evidence of humans in the Hamilton

area, and a native village whose partial excavation has generated over 56,000 artifacts (Green,

2003). The valley is also dotted with bicycle and walking trails/paths to provide a place for

retreat from the nearby noise and pace of urban living.

Being located in Hamiltons east end, those who have enjoyed the RHV primarily are working-class citizens who have long worked in the Fordist steel, chemical and environmental


5/28


Page 3 of 3

Map 1:Red Hill Valley and Proposed Expressway (CEAA, 2003)

Photo 1 and 2: Greenhill Avenue Area Before RHCE Construction and After (SKB & Associates, 2003)


6/28


Page 4 of 4

service/waste management sectors located at the northern end of the valley (McIsaac et al, 2003;

Smith, 1998). The area is home to 40% of Hamiltons 500,000 citizens (over 125,000 of which

are minorities), and represents one of the poorest communities in Canada (McLean, 2003; van

der Mark, 2003). With lower than average annual incomes ($22,372 compared to $25, 752 in the

rest of the city) and a higher unemployment rate (12.3% compared to the Citys average of

9.1%), they are economically vulnerable, suffer increased health risks and are usually non-voters

due, in part, to their immigration status (Lyn, 2003).

For the past twenty-five years, primary industries in Hamilton have been upgrading technology

or closing operations, both leading to a loss of jobs in this sector. Meanwhile, the City has only

been nominally successful at diversifying its economic base (health care services, educational

institutions, secondary manufacturing). As a result, employment figures have been falling

behind the rest of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) as the population continues to grow at half

the provincial pace despite amalgamating with Stoney Creek and Ancaster in 2000 and

increasing its land base by over 50 percent (Pettapiece, 2002; Hemson, 2003; C4SE, 2002;

McLean, 2003). The downtown cores population below the Niagara Escarpment has lost 45,000

people while the new bedroom communities on top of the Niagara Escarpment have gained

50,000 people (McLean, 2003). More than 20 percent of working Hamiltonians now leave their

homes each morning to drive to jobs in other GTA districts (Lyn, 2003).

Countless economic development plans and reports by city staff and hired consultants have

recommended that the RHCE is required to attract business, jobs and people to Hamilton in

general and, specifically, to develop the Hamilton Airport area (known as the Aerotropolis), the

North Glanbrook community and the northern end of the recently annexed Town of Stoney

Creek (Centre for Spatial Economics, 2000; Hemson Consulting, 2003; City of Hamilton, 2002;

EDCO, 2000; Pettapiece, 2002). However, by routing the RHCE through the east ends only

green space, the City of Hamilton has remained consistent with research indicating that working-

class communities throughout North America bear the brunt of environmental and economic

inequality (Lyn, 2003).


7/28


Page 5 of 5

The RHCE will cost $225 million to build of which $122 million will be provided by the

Government of Ontario. Council plans to borrow $79 million of its share despite City staff

warning that insufficient funding is being provided for facility maintenance, rehabilitation and

renewal; and capital funding levels are far below infrastructure needs in the area of roads, storm

sewers and waste management (City of Hamilton, 2002). In recent budgets, the City has

maintained RHCE funding while cutting long-standing environmental commitments (e.g.

harbourfront remedial action plans), water and sewage maintenance projects, and over $75

million from social and transit services, calling them unaffordable. In response, Councillor

Dave Braden has claimed, We can have either the Red Hill Expressway or everything else. Its

one thing or everything else (FRHV, 2002).

The first RHCE design, approved in the 1980s, was created at a time when only rudimentary

information was available regarding RHV flora and fauna and RHCE impacts2 on them (ibid,

1999). In 2002, after field research and impact assessments had been documented, the 1980s

plan was changed -- without a full environmental assessment (EA) -- in order to: dynamite an 80-

metre wide and 12-metre deep hole in the face of the Niagara Escarpment; physically relocate

eight kilometers of the Red Hill Creek; build a 220-metre viaduct; construct several stormwater

ponds; and redesign the Greenhill Avenue interchange (see Photos, Page 3). The RHCE will

carve the largely intact RHV into 30 small patches. It will have significant impacts in terms of

habitat loss, wildlife extirpation, decreased air quality and potential flooding (ibid, 2002).

As a result of East Hamiltons demographics (which includes very few, if any, pro-RHCE elite

(Lukasik, 2003)), it is in the perfect position to be taken advantage of by the urban growth

machine. Although expressway opponents have stated that the combination of environmental

and cultural devastation with the short and long-term debt will exacerbate the tax burden on

Hamilton taxpayers (especially those at the bottom end of the social ladder to carry), the elite

threaten job losses if the RHCE is not built. They predict that Hamilton will not grow without

the RHCE (due to limited transportation access), that the road is already 60 percent built (due to

the Lincoln Alexander section completed) and that its debt has all been accounted for by city pre-

2 For a virtual tour of the RHV before and after construction, see www.skbandassociates.com/redhill/map.html


8/28


Page 6 of 6

planning. Further, they argue that RHV wildlife can co-exist, that the environment will be

improved as a result of new storm runoff and sewage diversion systems accompanying the

expressway and that car-related death and truck-induced dust and noise will be reduced

significantly thus reducing overall emissions (Hemson, 2003; Phillips, 1999; GHMTF, 1999;

City of Hamilton, 2002). This propaganda creates anxieties over joblessness for the vulnerable

population who may not have the means to understand the implications of the RHCE to their

overall health and welfare (Molotch, 1976: 259).

3. The Expressway: Stakeholder Analysis

When Molotch first wrote his urban growth machine thesis in 1976, the RHCE had already been

publicly discussed for 25 years. Up until then, the debate was mainly between local and

provincial governments who usually acted as the voice for the business and development

community. In the ensuing 27 years, the emergence of participatory planning and the election of

different governments has inspired NGOs, volunteer groups, First Nations communities, and

businesses to compete or work with one another (and government) in a nested fashion to gain

support for the RHCE (Molotch, 1976:311).

The RHCEs proponents and opponents fits perfectly with Molotchs core idea of value free

development versus local citizens (Brinson, 2003). The battle constitutes different visions of

place and how the elite and impacted citizens seek acceptance of their vision to preserve the

economy, the environment or social justice or all three. Below is an analysis of the main

RHCE players and their role in the most protracted debate in Hamilton history.

3.1 Red Hill Creek Expressway Proponents

Current proponents of the RHCE include governments, developers, industry, business

associations, consultants, a community task force and members of the public. Although they

utilize a number of tactics to garner public support for the RHCE and related growth, more

important is the tax-payer subsidized growth in personal wealth that this development means to

landowners (Molotch, 1976: 310, 313). For all groups, a limited access expressway provides

time savings for goods (truck) movement and personal (car) travel. In their view, any


9/28


Page 7 of 7

environmental destruction to the natural area can be mitigated through human intervention

(GHMTF, 2003).

3.1.1 Government

Government is the venue where final decisions must be made about infrastructure affecting the

lives of human beings and other species. In the case of projects like the RHCE, politicians and

city staff portray themselves as trying to balance who, in material terms, gets what, where, and

how. However, like the place-based developers and business associations who support them,

they desire growth of the tax base to remain in business. This is the politics of distribution, and

land is the crucial (but not the only) variable in this system (Molotch, 1976: 313-314).

Therefore, Hamilton governments have, for the most part, remained the voice of the urban

growth machine while professing to listen to the non-moneyed volunteer groups and citizens

who are largely excluded from the process.

Municipal Government

As the historical account in Appendix 1 recounts, Hamilton City Hall has promoted the RHCE

since 1979 resulting in close government-business relationships. A few examples include:

Recently elected Mayor Larry Di Ianni, Chair of the Citys RHCE Steering Committee, has

consistently received 80 percent of his corporate and union election campaign donations fromthe real estate and construction sector (FRHV, 2003). He has claimed that the entire road will

be built from the aggregate extracted from the new hole blasted in the Niagara Escarpment

(McLean, 2003).

Former Regional Chairman Terry Cooke, who called opponents to the RHCE a small group

of people who just dont accept the democratic process (Arnold 1998 in Lukasik, 2000) and

directed RHCE supporters to write letters to the Federal government during the panel review,

became Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer of Fluke Transport (a local trucking firm)

several weeks prior to leaving his City post in 2000 (McLean, 2003).

Councillor Murray Fergusons brother Larry is the General Manager of Dufferin Aggregates

which has won several contracts to oversee the destruction of the RHV and the construction of

the expressway (Kay, 2003).


10/28


Page 8 of 8

City staff members are also major proponents of the RHVE as they have much to gain from their

ongoing involvement in what they call The Red Hill Valley Project (RHVP). There are at least

nine full-time personnel who have, according to environmentalist Scott Neigh, become a lobby

group whose personal interest, their families, their financial stake is tied up in the Red Hill

project continuing (Curran, 2000; Lukasik, 2003). The same can be said for the various

managers and staff from Transportation, Operations and Environment; Finance and Corporate

Services; Legal Services and Corporate Counsel; Communications; Chief of Staffs Office;

Planning and Development; and the City Clerks Office who provide counsel to the RHVP.

The current City staff is bolstered by letter writing campaigns by retired City staff like Waldo A.

Wheten, former Hamilton City Engineer, and retired Commissioner of Engineering, Region of

Hamilton-Wentworth. He writes: The Red Hill Creek link in our roadway system is essential ifHamilton is to regain its status as the industrial capital of Canada and become the vibrant City it

once was (GHMTF, 2003)

Under the Regions impact assessment and design process in 1999, the government created the

Citizens Stakeholder Committee to analyze and reduce the environmental impacts of the

RHCE. Besides the anti-expressway Friends of Red Hill Valley group (FRHV), the committee

was comprised mainly of pro-expressway supporters including the Hamilton and District

Chamber of Commerce, the Hamilton-Halton Homebuilders Association, East Mountain

Industrial Park, United Parcel Service (UPS), TradePort International, and the International

Construction Workers Union (FRHV, 1999). When a FRHV motion requesting discussion of

RHCE need was vetoed, FRHV quit en-masse in a sign of protest against the unfair

proceedings (Curran, 2000). Although the concept of this stakeholder group was a good one,

the pro-expressway elite involved was able to erode (its) capacity to collectively solve

problems by excluding the minoritys perspective (Elkin, 1987 in Molotch, 1999: 258).

Provincial Government

Beginning with the heyday of highway building in the 50s, the Province of Ontario pressured

the City of Hamilton to build the RHCE and didnt stop until council surrendered in the late

1970s. Some of the provincial tactics used included appointing powerful regional chairs and the


11/28


Page 9 of 9

withholding of conditional grants, a measure that the Province often used to force municipal

governments to obey their not-so-subtle wishes (Curran, 2000). Once Council agreed to

provincial demands in 1979, it was a matter of obtaining funding of over $100 million to build

the road something that the Tories and Liberals have always committed to. When the federal

government became involved in the RHCE Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA)

Full Panel Review in 1999, the provinces Minister of Environment and Minister of Transport

disputed the questionable intrusion into a long-awaited local project from which the people of

Hamilton-Wentworth will derive considerable benefit. They requested that the Federal

government should reconsider the panel review before it proceeds any further (MOE/MTO,

1999).

Although it has always been considered a Tory Road (McLean, 2003), Hamilton East Liberal

MPP (and new Assistant to the Minister of Environment) Dominic Agostino as well as other

party members have consistently supported the RHCE as well (OLA, 1996). By following

through on the previous governments $100 million funding commitment (even in the face of a

$5.6 billion deficit), new Premier Dalton McGuinty has converted the Tory Road into a

Liberal road.

Federal Government

In regards to the RHCE, the federal government, for the most part, has taken the role as protector

of the environment, spearheaded by East Hamilton Member of Parliament (MP) Sheila Copps

(see below, p. 16). However, other local MPs Tony Valeri and Stan Keyes took issue with their

own partys full panel EA review decision in 2000. At the time, Valeri wrote that it was

difficult to believe that in this, the year 2000, we do not have the resources to build an

expressway in an environmentally sensitive manner while Keyes agreed with the majority of

residents in the region who support the building of the remaining eight kilometers of the Red Hill

Creek Expressway in an environmentally responsible way (GHMTF, 2003).

3.1.2 Business Associations, Industry Sectors and Individuals

Place-based businesses and the people who own them have the most to gain or lose in land use

decisions (Molotch, 1976: 314). As the RHCE took longer and longer to be built, developers,


12/28


Page 10 of 10

trucking companies, the media, industrialists and others went from being low-profile, backroom

voices speaking through their membership organizations to very public, and often fanatical

advocates of the expressway.

Hamilton Chamber of Commerce

The Hamilton Chamber of Commerce (HCC) has 1,600 members representing 1,100 businesses

employing 50,000 people. Together with neighbouring Chambers and the Hamilton-Halton

Home Builders Association, the HCC has been one of the strongest supporters of the RHCE

(HCC, 2003). Although it claims to look at more than just business interests when deciding to

lobby on any major issue (Jones, 1999), they encourage lower business taxes as well as public

infrastructure and Aerotropolis development. In order to make their point about the RHCE, the

HCC claims that one of their objectives is to provide their grandchildren with jobs and describes

those who want to save the valley as a highly organized and well connected environmentalist

lobby (Dolbec, 1999).

However, not all HCC members agree with the direction the Chamber is taking with the RHCE.

A 1999 Hamilton Spectator poll found that while 78 percent of HCC members wanted an

expressway to be built, only 48 percent wanted it in the RHV (FRHV, 1999). Another survey,

completed in 2003, indicated that about 30 percent of HCCs members either disagreed with the

organizations position on the issue or had not been asked their opinion of it (This Week, 2003).

Hamilton-Halton Home Builders Association

The Hamilton-Halton Home Builders Association (HHHBA) portrays itself not as a lobby group

but as an advocate for consumers. However, their 300 members appear to be more interested

in their own growth as their number one Code of Ethics pledge is to encourage home ownership

by Canadian families (HHHBA, 2003). Current and past presidents have included Aldo

DeSantis, Al Frizina and Tony Battaglia, three people who have much to gain from the

construction of the RHCE (see page 12).


13/28


Page 11 of 11

Get Hamilton Moving Task Force

The Get Hamilton Moving Task Force (GHMTF) was organized to lobby for the completion of

the Red Hill Creek Expressway. According to their website, the GHMTF has 400 active

individual members (the most vocal from the waste management and trucking sectors), with the

HCC being a leading and founding member (Jones, 1999). GHMTFs spokespersons are

usually HCC Presidents and many of its members worked previously with the 1990 Citizens

Expressway Committee (GMHTF, 2003).

The GHMTF believes that truck noise and dust on Hamilton streets is a far greater environmental

problem than the building of the expressway through the valley. They state that Environmental

remediation coupled with architectural features and structures can actually make the Red Hill

Valley more accessible and attractive than it is at present (2003). They have called the FRHV

a terrorist group disguised as an environmental group which has threatened to booby-trap'

the trees in the valley so that any worker who attempts to cut down a tree for expressway

construction will be killed or seriously injured." The comments were later withdrawn with a full

apology (FRHV, 2000).

Primary and Secondary Industries

The steel, auto, aggregate and light industries in Hamilton have kept a relatively low profile

when speaking about the RHCE, preferring to have their business associations do the lobbying

for them. While Dofasco Inc. has publicly stated its support for the expressway (Lyn, 2003),

Dufferin Aggregates has worked behind the scenes due to the dynamiting of the Niagara

Escarpment the largest single cut ever made to it (McLean, 2003). Although RHCE

supporters have argued that many light industries have moved out of Hamilton due to lack of

access to transportation, recent evidence indicates otherwise. Levi Strauss closed operations

despite being located adjacent to the 403 Highway and Camco, which also resided beside the

403, stated that their closure was due to lack of volume, overcapacity in the appliance industry,

and the facility's inability to compete against newer and larger global manufacturing plants

(CBC, 2003).


14/28


Page 12 of 12

Real Estate Companies and Developers

The building industry is responsible for over $4.5 billion annually and almost 17,000 jobs within

the Hamilton area (DeSantis, 2002). The RHCE leads directly to the suburban greenfields and

Aerotropolis located on the top of the Escarpment as well as upper Stoney Creek, all of which is

held by the wealthy landowners who are part of the building industry.

According to one long time Hamilton East resident, there are several influential families who

have been in the development industry forever and they have this sort of historical privilege

that, because they pull a lot of strings and always have, theyve cultivated these connections. So

youve got a culture where, in this town, you almost defer to these interest groupsand I call

them interest groups (Curran, 2000).

These interest groups and vocal supporters of the RHCE include:

Tony Battaglia of TradePort International (private consortium operating Hamilton Airport and

developing Aerotropolis) and former president of HHHBA;

Aldo DeSantis of Multi-Area Developments/Aldo DeSantis Realty and current HHHBA

president, and;

Lloyd Ferguson of Dufferin Construction (brother of City Councillor and RHCE supporter

Murray Ferguson); Al Frisina of Frisina Construction and former HHHBA President;

Angelo Paletta of Paletta International.

Together with the HHHBA and HCC, these developers have been able to:

maintain the lowest development charges in Southern Ontario at $7,000 per residence

(McLean, 2003)

obtain a border extending Official Plan Amendment (north of the RHV) from City councillors

in direct conflict with the protestations of City staff who went on strike as a result (Van

Harten, 2000; McLean, 2003).

obtain $50 million from the City for sewage, water, and fire for the 32 acre Rymal Business

Park located at the junction of the RHV and the Lincoln Alexander Parkway (McLean, 2003)


15/28


Page 13 of 13

Trucking Industry

The RHCE would shorten the trucking route between Detroit and Buffalo by twelve kilometers

and accommodate an estimated 6,000 to 7,600 trucks daily (Purnell, 1996; Kilpatrick, 2003). As

early as 1977, former Hamilton East MPP Bob Mackenzie warned that groups wishing to save

the valley would have to unite since the pressure on local government carries a lot of weight

when it comes from (the) multi-million dollar (trucking) industry" (Curran, 2000). Hamilton-

based Fluke Transport has direct connections with government through its VP and COO Terry

Cooke who was Regional Chair for six years whereas Stoney Creek-based Span-Nation

Transportation Services Leon Sauers is a pro-expressway letter writing member of the GHMTF

(2000). On a provincial level, the Ontario Trucking Association (OTA) collaborated with the

Region in its opposition to the Federal full panel EA review in 1999. In doing so, OTAs

president repeated the same message as other business supporters by saying that the ...potential

impact on improving safety on local roads while enhancing the regional and provincial economy

is beyond dispute" (Truck News, 1999).

Media

According to Molotch, local media is the most important example of a business which has its

interest anchored in the aggregate growth of the locality (1976: 316). In terms of the RHCE,

history has shown that the local media has aligned itself with the municipal governments

thinking. In 1976, a Hamilton Spectator editorial warned if the (provincial) government has

any notions of overruling the local council on (the RHV), they should be forgotten quickly. If

the city council is unanimously against the routeand that is a matter of recordthe question

should be considered closed (Curran, 2000). Today, Hamilton and Stoney Creeks major

electronic and print media are owned by Torstar Limited. In the 2003 election, all sources were

pro-expressway and vigorously supported Councillor Larry Di Iannis successful bid to become

Hamiltons new Mayor (FRHV, 2003).

Consultants

To help downsized staff with their RHCE workload and to provide a non-partisan appearance,

City Hall has hired a long list of transportation, landscape, engineering, communications, and

economic consultants and planners to prepare studies regarding the need for the road. However,


16/28


Page 14 of 14

it appears that consultants like The Centre for Spacial Economics, Dillon Consulting, Hemson

Consulting and many others rarely contradict the RHCE ideas promoted by City staff/councillors

so that they can get future jobs with the City (Lukasik, 2003). Other well-known consultants like

Frank Clayton of Clayton Research are hired by business associations to rally the troops in

their call for more growth (HHHBB, 2003).

Private Home Owners

For home owners, the development of new land adjacent and in the general vicinity of their own

could lead to higher property values and, therefore, income, if and when they want to sell. Those

who are wealthy enough to own property also are more likely to own a vehicle or two. Like the

GHMTF and OTA, the potential for them to save a few minutes driving time in the short term

outweighs the destruction of the RHV.

3.2 Red Hill Creek Expressway Opponents

My observations and conversations with anti-RHCE supporters at a recent political

demonstration and information evening fit Molotchs description as a mixture of activists

(environmentalists, social justice), middle class professionals (teachers and other academics),

students and workers, all of whom see their own tax rates as well as life-styles in conflict with

growth (1976: 328). First Nations people are also very much involved. The perspective of

these opponents on the RHCE is very different from the urban growth machine. This may be, in

part, due to their relative lack of wealth, power and entrenchment and the fact that they have

nothing to gain personally from the preservation of the RHV: the park is a public good that

benefits the citizens of Hamilton and beyond. The valley savers can only rely on their own

environmental, legal, cultural, communications and economic skills as well as the moral and

financial support of certain politicians and agencies (see below), the public, and well known

artists, environmentalists and religious figures (e.g. Robert Bateman, Robert Kennedy, Jr. and

Reverend Canon Patrick Doran) (FRHV, 2003; Torstar News Service, 2001; Diocese of Niagara,

2003).


17/28


Page 15 of 15

3.2.1 Community Groups and Non-Governmental Organizations

There are over twenty loosely knit non-governmental organizations and community groups

working to save the natural and cultural heritage of the valley (see Appendix 2). Although urban

growth machine elites paint them as environmentalists, they are not purely stewardship or

preservation groups, but also respond to the negative impacts of industrialization on

environmental quality and human quality of life (Lukasik, 2002).

Probably the most prominent group working to save the valley is the Friends of Red Hill Valley

(FRHV). Established in 1991, this organization concerns itself with the cost, impact on human

health, and the larger community trade-offs that such a large infrastructure project would

demand (e.g. urban decay, environmental destruction) (Lukasik, 2002; Clark, 1998). FRHV

programs are entirely volunteer-driven and expenses are funded through donations from its 800

members. Their operations are not rooted in any one neighbourhood but 75 percent of the core

group are East Enders with about a third of those being people who live in neighbourhoods either

directly adjacent or very close to the valley (Lukasik, 2002; 2003). Besides research and

information dissemination through the internet and other means, the FRHV gains public attention

about the quality of life issues surrounding the RHCE by organizing media and letter-writing

campaigns, protests and rallies, and has (unsuccessfully) run candidates in municipal elections

since 1997.

3.2.2 Haudenosaunee Confederacy and Six Nations

Recent Supreme Court decisions have acknowledged that First Nations have some right to title in

their traditional lands. However, this title may be infringed on by either provincial or federal

governments if the infringement satisfies a compelling legislative objective (e.g. general

economic development). If such an infringement occurs, the government must recognize its

fiduciary relationship with Aboriginal people, and ensure that there is as little infringement as

possible, that fair compensation is made available and that the Aboriginal group has been

consulted (FRHV, 2002).

For many years, representatives of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, through their own

Environmental Task Force, have been opposed to the RHCE. This is due to the fact that the


18/28


Page 16 of 16

land on which Hamilton sits is traditional territory that belonged to the Mississauga people and

the Haudenosaunee (or Six Nations) people prior to its purchase by the British Crown in 1784.

As mentioned above, the RHV holds aboriginal burial grounds and other artifacts that are sacred

to the HSNC. As a result, both the Confederacy and the Six Nations Band Council have been

negotiating with the City (FRHV, 2003; Kilpatrick, 2003). More recently, one of their members

has sought a court injunction to halt construction of the Red Hill Creek Expressway which he

alleges contravenes the 1701 Nanfan Treaty on hunting and fishing rights in Ontario (Nolan and

Van Harten, 2003).

3.2.3 Politicians, Parties and Agencies

On any issue, there are usually some politicians and agencies who take the role of protector of

the working class and/or the environment. In the case of the RHCE, local Councillors Dave

Braden, Margaret McCarthy, Andrea Horwath and recently elected Brian McHattie have

consistently opposed the expressway. As indicated in the historical section found in Appendix 1,

the provincial New Democratic Party (NDP) withdrew funding (but not approval) in the early

1990s as a result of environmental concerns which current leader Howard Hampton still

maintains (Unknown Author, 2003). The Niagara Escarpment Commission and Hamilton

Conservation Authority have also been adamantly opposed to the RHCE. At the federal level,

local MP Sheila Copps helped support Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans work on the matter but appeals to the courts ended their pursuit of protecting the RHV

from destruction in 2002 (FRHV, 2003).

Conclusion

The case of the Red Hill Creek Expressway demonstrates that the Hamilton urban growth

machine has the connections, money and sheer numbers of people to achieve their political and

economic goals despite citizen-based groups using every democratic tactic available to save the

precious valley. True to Molotchs theory, Hamiltons elite do not hold value for anything that

does not create wealth for their short-term personal gain. Therefore, they choose expensive,

subsidized public infrastructure to meet their needs rather than consider the long-term health,

environmental, social and financial impacts of these facilities, especially on low-income people

as well as non-human species.


19/28


Page 17 of 17

However, it does not have to be this way. In 1999, Molotch set out a number of criteria for

public expenditures that could meet the aspirations of the growth machine while improving

quality of life for all citizens. In order to do this, he suggests that all infrastructure projects be

feasible, equitable, economically sound in the long-term, offer high-quality employment, and

environmentally benign (p. 263).

After 52 years of debate, the battle of the Red Hill Creek Expressway appears to have been won

by Hamiltons urban growth machine. Although this outcome confirms the Citys contradictory

values, it is hoped that, in the future, governments, businesses, the social sector and the public

learn from this ill-informed highway scheme so that better and more sustainable infrastructure

decisions are made in the future.


20/28


Page 18 of 18

Appendix 1:

History of the Red Hill Creek Expressway

1922 2003

Below is a brief overview of the complexities and controversy that have surrounded the Red HillValley (RHV) and the proposed Red Hill Creek Expressway (RHCE) for the past 75 years

(Curran, 2000; Lukasik, 2002; Estrin and Locan, 2000; FRHV, 2003; City of Hamilton, 2003).

1920s: City purchases the RHV (known as the Kings Forest property) and designates it as

parkland. Hamilton Board of Parks Management Chair, Thomas Baker McQueston 3, states that

"large park areas in surroundings of natural beauty fulfill a need which cannot be met in any

other way" and that the newly-acquired public property would "preserve for all time one of the

outstanding spectacular areas in the County of Wentworth".

1951: First RHCE proposal submitted and rejected by council.

1956: New transportation study of RHCE prepared by consultants Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Hall &

MacDonald.

1960: Highway Plan for the Hamilton-Wentworth Area proposed.

1963: Hamilton Area Transportation Plan (H.A.T.) created which includes RHCE and the current

Lincoln Alexander Freeway, an east-west Barton St. Freeway, the Chedoke Expressway, and a

north-south mountain freeway along Sherman Ave).

1969: Clear Hamilton of Pollution (CHOP) founded both to prevent pollution and save the RHV.

1973: Hamilton Transportation Strategy Study (City).

1974: Aldermen pass motion opposing the RHCE.

1975: Red Hill Creek Expressway Review: An Analysis of Alternative Solutions prepared by

Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO); Aldermen pass motion opposing the RHCE.

1976: Council designates RHV as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) in Hamiltons

Official Plan.

3 McQuesten later became Minister of Highways and Public Works in the Ontario government (Royal BotanicalGardens, 2003).


21/28


Page 19 of 19

1977: City makes secret deal with the adjacent community of Stoney Creek whereby necessary

road improvements to nearby Highway 20 are not to be carried out until after the RHCE is

completed.

1979: Mountain East-West and North-South Corridor Study prepared by Region & MTO. For

the first time in almost 30 years, council succumbs to provincial pressure and developer/highway

lobby; Although municipal undertakings are not subject to the Ontario Environmental

Assessment Act (EAA), the City requests that the provincial Minister of the Environment

designate the project as an EAA undertaking on the condition that the resulting environmental

assessment hearing would be consolidated with all other required approval hearings. The

Minister approves this request; Save The Valley (STV), a citizens committee is established to

prevent the building of the RHCE;

1982: Six-lane RHCE approved along with the destruction of 200 acres of land.

1984-85: CHOP renamed the Conserver Society of Hamilton & District (CSHD); Despite legal

requirements for separate hearings/approvals under the Niagara Escarpment Planning Act,

Conservation Authority Act and Environmental Assessment Act, the provincial Conservative

government consolidates the NEC decision into a Joint Board Hearing overseen by one

Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) officer and two Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)

appointees. Arriving at a 2-1 decision in favour of the RHCE, the two OMB appointees declare

that the project will improve the valley while the EAB representative submits a 116-page

dissenting decision. He concludes that the need for the road has not been shown, and even if it

had been, Red Hill Valley should not be the location for it. The OMB majority also orders the

Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority to issue all

necessary approvals for the project proclaiming that the road would be built without creating an

additional opening through the escarpment.

1987: STV issues legal challenge to the decision to the Ontario Liberal Cabinet and to the

Divisional Court.

1988: Region creates Freeway Project Office, headed by Freeway Steering Committee (FSC), to

administer and manage the organization, design and construction of the RHCE.

1990: STV challenge fails; RHCE construction work is begun but the newly elected NDP

provincial government, citing environmental concerns, withdraws its funding portion which


22/28


Page 20 of 20

forces the City to postpone the project. Regional government and local business community

protest vehemently.

1991: As a result of the ensuing protest and a newly established pro-expressway organization

called the Citizens Expressway Committee 4 (CEC), CSHD creates new group called Friends of

Red Hill Valley (FRHV); Region creates task force that develops a Vision 2020 sustainable

development strategy for the Region. The chair of the task force, who is also the chair of the FSC

forbids any discussion relating to the RHCE.

1993: NDP appoints David Crombie to investigate alternative RHCE designs that will facilitate

vehicular movement and protect the environment.

1994 Crombie Proposal meets objectives and provides $21.3 million to fund the Red Hill

Valley Revitalization Project (RHVRP)5

. It is endorsed by all groups except for Region which

pledges to construct a slightly altered 5-lane RHCE plan.

1995: RHVRP completes recreational trail and inventories but newly elected Progressive

Conservative government restores $100 million from provincial coffers for the RHCE while

revoking RHVRP funds; Region follows through on original plans to build RHCE as designed

prior to Crombie Proposal.

1996: New Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) rules cause City to apply for an EAA

exemption order.

1997: Due to decrease in provincial funding ($180 million to $100 million), Region modifies

RHCE plans and receives final approval from Tories which also grants an EA exemption order 6

that requires proponent to create a community stakeholder committee, prepare a RHV watershed

plan, rejustify construction and decrease environmental impacts; Stoney Creek News reveals

secret 1977 Hamilton-Stoney Creek no road construction deal as crashes and congestion on

city streets are used as rationale for the RHCE.

1998: Re-routing of nine kilometers of Red Hill Creek and subsequent destruction of fish habitat

requires a permit from the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) which triggers the

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). Since full provincial EA has been refused,

4 Members of this organization later became very involved in the Get Hamilton Moving Task Force (Lukasik, 2003)5 The new initiative provided funding for trail construction, biological and archeological inventories, an interpretivecentre, storm and combined sewer overflow studies, general clean-up, and public participation facilitation.6 This exemption was granted amidst allegations from FRHV and others that the original assessment done in 1985was not a complete assessment since it did not include the northernmost end of the valley ecosystem (FRHV 1997).


23/28


Page 21 of 21

FRHV and other groups see an opportunity to comprehensively examine the RHCE from an

environmental angle for the first time; FRHV quits the Regions CSC to protest unfairness.

1999: Federal government begins full panel review of RHCE. Region decides against

participating but challenges the reviews scope in federal court and wins. Decision was

subsequently appealed by the federal government.

2000: Appeals court rules against the federal government. FRHV and other supporters push for

the federal government to take the case to the Supreme Court which constrains regions work on

road.

2001: Environment Hamilton (EH!) created after citizens awarded $150,000 by the Ministry of

Environment for bringing a lawsuit against the City of Hamilton for polluting the Red Hill

Creek.

2002: Federal government decides against pursuing Supreme Court action which allows Region

to restart RHCE work; Mayor kicks off Citys seed collection program stating that the City is

able to be environmentally responsible as we proceed with construction of the components of the

Red Hill Valley Project.

2003: After a long battle with FRHV, the provincial Information and Privacy Commissioner

rules that the City cannot use client-solicitor privilege to prevent the release of RHCE-related

studies; Since a major pipeline must be relocated to make way for the RHCE, the National

Energy Board (NEB) declares that it will conduct a "public written hearing" and that there were

will be a federal EA. City appeals NEB EA and makes known several changes to its RHCE

plans that were not part of 1985 design (see impacts section on page 4); Picketing begins in RHV

when construction crews due to arrive while Six Nations build sacred fire and long house; City

requests and receives court injunction to prevent citizens from picketing which First Nations

ignore declaring that City has no rights on native lands; Construction crews begin clear-cutting

valley of 47,000 trees (without required permits) after Six Nations arrested; McMaster

University engineers provide Highway 20 alternative to RHCE costing half the price and no

environmental devastation; Pro-Expressway Mayor Dianni elected in municipal elections with

only 20% of the vote; FRHV and others walk from Hamilton to Queens Park in order to

highlight destruction to RHV and provide new Liberal government opportunity to save $120

million in the just found $5.6 billion deficit; Using 1701 Nanfan Treaty, Aboriginal lawsuit


24/28


Page 22 of 22

launched to prevent City from building RHCE; New prime minister Paul Martin appoints local

MP and RHCE supporter Tony Valeri as new federal Transport Minister.

Appendix 2:

Community Groups and Non Governmental Organizations

Opposing the Red Hill Creek Expressway

Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC)

Bruce Trail Association (provincial level)

Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA)

Citizens for a Sustainable Community (CSC)

Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment (CONE)Community Action Parkdale East (CAPE)

Concerned Citizens of Ward 5 (CCW5)

Conserver Society of Hamilton and District Inc. (formerly CHOP)

East Hamilton - Stoney Creek Health Association

Environment Hamilton (EH!)

Federation of Ontario Naturalists (FON)

Friends of Red Hill Valley (FRHV)

Hamilton Beach Preservation Committee

Hamilton Naturalists' Club

King's Forest Orienteering Club

Lake Ontario Waterkeepers

Red Hill Neighbourhood Association

Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC)

Union of Showstoppers

Watershed Action Towards Environmental Responsibility

Western Lake Ontario Environmental Coalition


25/28


Page 23 of 23

References

Brinson, Peter (2003), Gentrification: Capitalism and the Paradox of Urban Revitalization,http://www.tao.ca/~denny/gentrification.htm

C4SE (2002) City of Hamilton: Population, Household and Employment Projectionshttp://www.c4se.com/Hamilton%20Report%201102.pdf

CBC News (2003), Camco closing Hamilton plant; 800 jobs cut, October 17, 2003http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/10/17/camco_031017

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) (2003), Websitehttp://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/index_e.htm

City of Hamilton (2002),Budget 2002http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Finance/2002-budget/default.asp

City of Hamilton (2002),Economic Development Strategy (Final) Reporthttp://www.hamilton.ca/business/development/pdf/ecdev-strategy.pdf

City of Hamilton (2001), Sustainability Indicators 2001 Report Card, Vision 2020,http://www.vision2020.hamilton-went.on.ca./indicators/2001reportcard.asp

City of Hamilton (2001), Sustainable Community Decision Making Guide (Version Three):Balancing Economic, Environmental, and Social/Health Factors for a Sustainable Community ,January 2001. http://www.vision2020.hamilton-went.on.ca/downloads/Sutainable-Community-Decision-Making-Guide-2001.pdf

Clark, Nancy (1998),Local Heroes:Don McLean versus the expressway, Seasons, Summer1998, 30-32

Curran, Andrew (2000),Democracy, Municipal Politics and the Red Hill Creek Expressway,http://www.hwcn.org/link/Rathaus/docs/andrews_project/Welcome.htm

DeSantis, Aldo (2002), Hamilton-Halton Home Builders Association Industry Address, April2002 http://www.hhhba.ca/view_in_the_news.asp?news_id=90

Diocese of Niagara (2003) OnLine Discussion Board: Red Hill Creek Expresswayhttp://www.niagara.anglican.ca/plannedgiving/Board/Thread.cfm?threadid=30&messages=18#75

Dolbec, John (1999),Letter to Councillor David Bryden, Hamilton Chamber of Commerce,April 26, 1999


26/28


Page 24 of 24

EDCO - Economic Developers Council of Ontario (2000),Hamilton Airport Becomes Zone ofOpportunity, Newsletter, 2, 24, November 29, 2000http://www.edco.on.ca/news/news20001129.htm

Estrin, David and Locan, Andrew (2000),Red Hill Creek Expressway Memorandum of Fact and

Law for Federal Court Trial, Gowling Lafleur, Henderson LLP, October 20, 2003

FRHV - Friends of Red Hill Valley (1999-2003), Various website pageshttp://www.hwcn.org/link/forhv/

GHMTF - Get Hamilton Moving Task Force (1999-2003), Various website pages.http://www.buildtheexpressway.com/

Green, Diane (2003)Red Hill high priority for Niagara EscarpmentCommission, HamiltonNaturalist Society, August 19, 2003

Hamilton-Halton Home Builders Association (HHHBA) (2002) Website.http://www.hhhba.ca/view_in_the_news.asp?news_id=71

Hamilton Naturalists Club (2003),Red Hill Valley,http://www.hamiltonnature.org/publications/naturallyham/redhill.htm

Hemson Consulting (2003), Completing the Red Hill Creek Expressway EconomicDevelopment Implications, July 2003http://www.hamilton.ca/public-works/capital-planning/red-hill-valley-program/Final-Reports/One-File-Reports/Ec-Dev-Implications.PDF

Jonas, Andrew E.G. and Wilson D. (1999), The City as a Growth Machine: CriticalPerspectives Two Decades Later in The Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives TwoDecades Later. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 3-20.

Jones, Bob (1999),Letter to Premier Mike Harris, Hamilton Chamber of Commerce,http://www.buildtheexpressway.com/default.asp?BobJones1.asp

Kay, Randy (2003),Letters, Lawyers & Legitimacy, View Magazine, August 2003

Kilpatrick, Ken (2003),Ruling gives green light to Hamilton expressway, The Globe and Mail,September 15, 2003, A12http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030915/UREDDM/TPEnvironment/

Lukasik, Lynda (2002) Planning for Community Empowerment: The Role of GrassrootsEnvironmentalism (Chapter 4), Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, School of Urban andRegional Planning, University of Waterloo


27/28


Page 25 of 25

Lukasik, Lynda (2003), Time to listen to the scientists, not politicians, Hamilton Spectator,September 16, 2003

Lukasik, Lynda (2003),Electronic Mail Correspondence, December 18, 2003

Lukasik, Lynda (2003),Municipal Candidate Website. http://www.lyndalukasik.ca/

Lyn, Andre (2003), Class, Space and Environmental Issues, Unpublished Paper, Department ofSociology, York University

McGuinness, Eric (2003), Fight to save Red Hill Valley far from over, Hamilton Spectator,June 6 , 2003

McIsaac, J., Botchkarev, A. Pinder, N., Biscak, K. (2003)A Virtual Tour of DowntownHamilton, Hamilton Public Library http://collections.ic.gc.ca/hamilton_tour/history.html

McLean, Don (2003), Personal Interview. November 23, 2003

Ministry of Environment & Ministry of Transportation (1999),Letter from Tony Clement andDavid Turnbull to Christine Stewart, Minister of Environment, July 30, 1999

Mohawk College,Award of Distinction Presentation to Tony Battaglia,http://www.mohawkc.on.ca/alumni/award/tbattaglia.htm

Molotch, Harvey (1976), The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place ,The American Journal of Sociology, 82, 2, 309-330

Molotch, Harvey (1999), GrowthMachine Links: Up, Down and Across, in The Urban GrowthMachine: Critical Perspectives Two Decades Later. Albany, New York: State University ofNew York Press, 247-266

Nolan, D. and Van Harten, P. (2003)Red Hill lawsuit seeks $100 million, Hamilton Spectator,November 28, 2003http://www.waterkeeper.ca/lok/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=6600

Office of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario (OLA) (1996), Debate regarding Red Hill CreekExpressway, March 26, 1996http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/house_debates/36_parl/session1/l047.htm

Pettapiece, Mike (2002),Hamilton must improve sales pitch, Hamilton Spectator, May 17,2002, p. C01

Phillips, Chris (1999), Citizens deserve to reap benefits of expressway, Hamilton Spectator,Exact date unknown.


28/28


Purnell, Jim (1996), Protection action needed for Hamiltons Red Hill Valley, The OntarioGreenhouse (Newsletter),Toronto: Green Party of Ontario.

Royal Botanical Gardens (2003)Historyhttp://www.rbg.ca/pages/more_about_history.html

SKB and Associates (2003), Visual Simulations of Red Hill Creek Expressway,http://www.skbandassociates.com/redhill/index.html

Smith, Mark E. (1998),Hamilton: Export City - Re-positioning a cityhttp://www.hourglass1998.com/BP-Hamilton.htm

This Week (2003)Red Hill Valley Issues, Chamber of Commerce Polling Results, November 7,2003 http://www.thisweek.ca/valley_issues/2003/11/results_of_cham.html

Torstar News Service (2001),Robert F. Kennedy Jr. slams expressway, Toronto Star,December 7, 2001

Truck News (1999), Opposition to Federal Review of Red Hill Creek Expressway Grows , TruckNews, August 6, 1999

Unknown Author (2003),Hampton sticks with long-standing NDP promise on expressway,Hamilton Spectator, May 9, 2003

Vallance-Jones, Fred (2001)Business running on empty, Hamilton Spectator, March 17, 2001http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/lament/383458.html

Van der Mark, John (2003), Growing Internationals, http://www.getchurch.org/inside/03-09/growing_internationals.shtml

Van Harten, Peter (2000) Ontario sells off farmland dirt cheap, Hamilton Spectator, August 9,2000 http://www.blackhole.on.ca/news_ontario_farmland.html

red hill creek expressway - final

Documents