Did you know that Hamilton councillors agreed earlier this month to spend just over $7.3 million of your hard-earned tax dollars on 36 local projects?
No doubt most of the projects seem to be needed within each community from the improvements to Gilkson Park on the Mountain, to needed new signal lights at Ferguson and Kelly in Ward 2, to repairs at Prince Phillip school. The funding came from the city’s capital re-investment fund earned through the area-rating program settlement between urban and suburban councillors agreed to last year. Wards 1-8 each have about $1.2 million to spend on local projects.
Ward 1 had 12 projects identified, while some wards had only one project, such as Ward 3 where councillor Bernie Morelli decided on $50,000 to go towards improving Ottawa Street North.
Ward 6 councillor Tom Jackson has stated he will be using his money in the future to help purchase Barton Secondary School land.
The projects selected came from consultations with city officials, and priorities that local councillors deemed necessary. But where was the public’s voice in all of this? While it is nice for Jackson to say he wants to save the property at Barton, what about the road or park improvements that could be done now with $1.2 million?
It’s time to remove political control of what projects get funded, where priority lists are usually conducted on a whim and a prayer, and put it in the hands of the people.
Hamilton councillors are repeatedly saying they want to have a transparent and open democratic government. If so, why not get their constituents involved in deciding which programs should be funded?
They could follow a concept called participatory budgeting, which has been operating since 1989 in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and is now conducted in about 1,200 cities in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. In Chicago, a local alderman held a year-long debate that culminated in a local election to determine which projects should receive a share of $1.3 million of taxpayers’ money.
The process attracted about 1,600 people and included a series of meetings with the public to set criteria. The people identified themes, met with experts, and conducted their own research. They eventually selected 36 budget items, which were put on a ballot. Residents, who were over 16 could cast a ballot. The result was to spend the money on 14 of the most popular projects, including fixing sidewalks, building bike lanes, creating a community garden, installing street lighting, and traffic signals.
Closer to home, Guelph has adopted a modified participatory budgeting process. Over the years, the city has  provided about $1 million. Projects are identified and implemented through 15 neighbourhood groups. The total cost of the process, which involves 10,000 people, is about $60,000 for the city.
Ward 1 councillor Brian McHattie has embraced the idea of participatory democracy, if not its actual form. He solicited help from his residents through his website to identify projects that needed funding. In Ward 2, various local neighbourhood associations, including Beasley Neighbourhood, have applauded the concept. But so far, using the process has all been simply talk, while councillors have remained indifferent to the idea.
You would think people, and neighbourhood associations would be rushing to use such a concept. For one thing, it removes some control from the politicians and gives people a chance to make local decisions on how to use their money within their community, something Hamiltonians have been crying about for years to have.
Participatory budgeting also provides a more equitable and better decision-making process; develops active citizens; it builds, and strengthens communities, a goal that Hamilton officials have identified as high priorities, especially in low income areas; it forces politicians to connect with their constituents on a direct basis; and it makes government more accountable to the public.
And really, isn’t that what a democratic form of government is all about?