Setting the Bar Too High

By now the news of the 2015 Pan American Games being awarded to Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe, or Southern Ontario, or some other variant geographical winning location name. Part of Hamilton's contribution will be added event locations including a government-backed/financed 15,000 seat stadium, a swimming pool at McMaster, and a velodrome. Adding to Hamilton's wish or needs list, is that the current 30,000 seat Ivor Wynne Stadium, home of the Canadian Football League Hamilton Tiger-Cats, is in dire need of replacement.

With that, Hamilton's leaders of perennial prognosticators of pugilistic participants are seeking to take the 15,000 seat gift tand double its size through private support most likely in corporate sponsor dollars towards the larger stadium. If there is a shortfall of required additional dollars required to build the larger than required stadium (for the Pan American games), then funds will be garnered through the tax assessment. Hardly something which taxpayers are supportive of.

To determine whether a 15,000 or a 30,000 seat stadium is the best fit, we must first look at the numbers:

Originally known as the Civic Stadium, it was constructed for the 1930 British Empire Games (now called the Commonwealth Games), Ivor Wynne has certainly enjoyed many years of athletic events. Throw in a few concerts, which caused much disdain from residents living close by, and you've got one heck of a facility…or at least it was. The 2007 Pan American Games in Rio de Janeiro saw close to 90,000 attend the opening ceremonies at the Maracana Stadium. While Hamilton will not be involved in any of the pomp and ceremony, the proposed stadium is planned to be used for the "Athletics" components of the competitions. Back in '07 Athletic competitions were held in two stadiums, the 60,000 seat Estadio Olimpico Joao Hevelange and the spacious Flamengo Park. When the Games were hosted in Winnipeg in 1999, attendance for all events hovered around the 500,000 mark for about 330 events, plus the opening and closing ceremonies. Given the history of the Games, it would appear that a 15,000 seat stadium is more than appropriate for Hamilton's participation in the Games.

What is sure to become the major tenant before and after the Games, is the CFL TiCats. Oddly enough, they're looking for the extra seats, which based on their historical trends, leans somewhat inappropriately too far out of a realistic reach. In 2008, the Kitty Litter attracted an average of 20,785; a decrease of 10.4% from 2007. This decline saw the stadium void of fans by the tune of 29.8% per game. Hamilton is a City in desperate need of adding value to the product it fields during the CFL season; certainly leaving the stadium one-third empty leads one to believe that there is little to no value in rushing out to buy a ticket to a game. 2009 attendance numbers fair no different, with only a slight increase in attendance (and one could go further to argue the actual numbers, as announced attendance seldom reflects those present in the stands).

Hamilton would do well to build a 15,000 seat stadium, with the capability to expand or add seats as required depending on the game or event. One only needs to look at the success of the Montreal Alouettes who moved from the spacious Olympic Stadium to the cramped confines of the 16,600-seat McGill University. The end result saw the Als play for a sold-out game every time. This equated to higher valued tickets and product…meaning more revenue for the team. You can rest assured that no one is giving away tickets for free in Montreal. In other words: why expand your inventory and dilute the value, when you can reduce your inventory and increase your value? From a business case scenario, this makes complete sense. Other sports franchises have toyed with this concept with consistent results; they create the demand to warrant a higher capacity facility while capitalizing on increased revenue growth due to high demand.

Manage the expectations, and the rest will take care of itself. Set the expectations too high, and you leave yourself vulnerable to criticisms which distract from any successes attained over time.

Finding the right University – From a First Time Experience

I've reached that time in my life where I'm finding myself helping my daughter choose a university to continue her education and pursue her love for the sciences. The lists of universities that we are reviewing in no particular order are: University of Waterloo, University of Western Ontario, University of Guelph, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Nipissing University, McMaster University, University of Alberta, and the University of British Columbia. We are about half-way through either touring the faculties or attending showcase events hosted by a university, and wanted to share some observations.

• So far I'm surprised that more effort is not put into creating a "wow" factor for perspective students. Each of the presentations thus far has been unfortunately 'canned' in both delivery and style. Considering the progression of technology, I'm continually amazed at the continued habit of presenters simply reading from the PowerPoint slides shown on the screen. I will give high marks however to UOIT who used 3D technology in their introductory video, but then lapsed back into reading from the slides later on. There is something to be said about 'knowing your audience', and I can't help but wonder if the universities actually get it. Assembled before them on the day of the tour or event, are students who have made concessions to visit either the university or event location with genuine interest in possibly attending that location – more effort should be made to make them feel like they should choose one over the other.
  
• Just what is the value of University Rankings? It appears that every university and college ranks tops, in the top ten, the best in, etc., on someone's list, but I'm unsure of the value of this ranking. I've met professors who went to 'x' university, but teach at 'y' university…and want my daughter to attend 'y' university. If 'x' university was good enough for them, why shouldn't my daughter go there instead? Perhaps what universities should focus on is the 'weight' of their degrees, and what added value is included in the teachings to reach said degree. Is a B.Sc. from McMaster regarded differently than one from Nipissing?
  
• While the Internet holds a plethora of information on each university/college, it's surprising how many responses to questions asked at tours/events were "just visit our website for more information." No one was guiltier of this than UBC, who pretty much answered every question with "check our website". Which considering that they were in Toronto with potential applicants, if their intent was to drive traffic to their website, they should have at least had terminals present to walk the applicants through to ensure they were able to get the answers required. Questions are being asked with the intent to solicit a response…not to be brushed aside.
  
• Referring to the first point of knowing the audience, I would expect that if those in attendance are not from the city that the university/college was located, that more time would be spent on life outside of the classroom. UWO did a wonderful job in this category, spending more time on the social aspects of attending university then on the classrooms. While the purpose of attending a university/college is to gain knowledge, the time spent in the classroom pales in comparison to the time spent in social circles…especially for a student who will be living in residence. A student who doesn't feel comfortable attending a particular location, is not going to enjoy their time…and this could affect their ability to succeed later on.
  

Here is our ranking of the universities of interest before our tours:

1. UBC
   
2. UOIT*
   
3. UofA*
   
4. UofW
   
5. UofG*
   
6. UWO
   
7. NU*
   
8. MAC**
   

And after visiting half of these:

1. UWO
   
2. UofG*
   
3. UofA*
   
4. UBC
   
5. UOIT*
   
6. UofW
   
7. NU*
   
8. MAC**
   

* - signifies that we have not toured or attended a specific event for this location, so this order will definitely change once this has been completed.

** - Because we live in Hamilton, McMaster has automatically been relegated to the bottom of the list, as my daughter has it in her mind that she wishes to attend university somewhere else other than the city she resides…if only just to enjoy the residence experience.

The intent will be to whittle the application list down to five. I'll leave it up to my daughter to decide which location she'll attend based on the anticipated letters of acceptance.

What Hamilton Means to Me

When I moved to Hamilton Ontario from London Ontario, I was unsure of what to expect. Living in London was your basic WASP environment, with a clear distinction of the upper and lower classes eloquently stated through the famed geographical EOA tagline. EOA stood for "East of Adelaide". Adelaide is the north/south street which became the marker for dividing the haves from the have-nots. While there is no definitive historical event, or hard-set data which dictates the EOA status, there certainly is an impression that there are more single-parent homes and social housing residents in EOA than any other area in London. Clearly, this is London's version of the "wrong side of the tracks", and I was a product of living in EOA. Our large family (8 kids) were raised in the most eastern neighbourhood (at the time…there is now a whole new set of subdivisions east of where I grew up…they hated the EOA tag so much, they adopted the "west of 100" tag to distance themselves from the poorer residences of EOA).

Hamilton has some similarities to London; spare the London only EOA tag…Hamilton carries its customary 'North-end' or 'East-end' tags, depending on who you speak to as to where the bad-ass part of town is. For my part, choosing where to live in Hamilton became solely reliant on a work associates recommendation of "Don't live below the mountain." So we embarked on finding a place on the mountain…which for clarity is the top of the Niagara Escarpment. In hindsight, we should have looked more closely. While I won't argue that the 'lower' city has its challenges, it does have something that the 'mountain' doesn't: community identity. Through no fault of its own, neighbourhoods built on the mountain were constructed primarily for commuters. Through growth commencing some 40-50 years ago, it's relatively young by comparison to the lower city, and as such lacks the cohesiveness garnered from long-standing families who were able to pass their home on to their children. While there are some active neighbourhoods on the mountain, the numbers pale in comparison to those in the lower city, despite the higher population on the mountain.

It's been 13 years since the decision was made to move to Hamilton, and I'd have to say that the decision to stay was made within 6 months of arriving here. Hamilton's proximity to Toronto, Niagara Falls, and London makes any trip manageable within an hour's drive. The fact that Hamilton is home to a number of waterfalls is something that continues to amaze family and friends still trapped in flat London. I'm not going to say how many waterfalls there are here, as the number seems to vary depending on the source. Sufficed to say, I'd recommend that you check out www.cityofwaterfalls.ca to get a good idea of how many waterfalls there really are. Whenever family or friends pay a visit, I make sure I spend a good couple of hours giving them the tour of some of the key sightlines of Hamilton, including those smokestacks which are a part of Hamilton's heritage.

Hamilton is poised to be something greater than it currently is, and through some innovative concepts, could actually become an envied City. In a little less than a year from now, residents will be heading to the polls to elect their municipal leaders. There remains some angst on whether the current leadership has not only the vision, but the fortitude to implement the change required to move Hamilton from 'potential' to a 'potent' community. It is often said of any community that the voter only cares about the issues that impact them directly (road needs paving, sidewalk is cracked, etc.). And, it's often said of any community that the incumbent politician only cares about the boundaries in which they represent. And, it's often said of any community that the current politician holding office is re-elected more often than not, regardless of their ability to be a true community leader.

While Hamilton certainly does have these obstacles before them, they also have some true visionaries who are working with city staff and politicians on what can and needs to be done to move Hamilton forward. One of the largest obstacles that may impede any progress would be the tax rate. Not unlike any other municipality, the economy has sapped resources while increasing the strain on the social services and programs – cuts to both are unavoidable, we'd be foolish to expect anything less. I'm looking forward to the coming years, but will steal a phrase from Albert Einstein who quipped, "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten."

In keeping with the current flu-isms: The challenge now will be to see if we can look past ails us, in order to administer the vaccine required to provide future protection should we encounter another viral economical downturn.

Playing it Safe Means Not Playing at All

At the current Canadian Cardiovascular Congress held October 24 – 28, a 7-year study was released which looked at 20,719 grade 9 students. Most notably, in the findings were that cholesterol levels grew from 9% in 2002 to 16% in 2008 of the 14-15 year old students studied. This translates to almost one in five teens being at a very high risk of developing either Type 2 Diabetes or premature heart disease. Concurrently, the study found that levels of 90 minutes physical activity (at least 5 days a week) dropped from 28% to 22% in the same time period.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to read into this study: youth today need to be more active. The elephant in the room that no one is talking about is: How?
Consider these reasons:
Ø Right from the time infants are able to walk, restrictive activity is enacted and only due to the social aspects of how we live and work today. Structure is introduced at a very early stage of growth, mandating the times of where, when, and what activity will be available to the toddlers, especially for those who attend a day-care or similar facility. Statistics indicate that ‘stay-at-home’ mothers/fathers raise children who not only eat better, but also engage in more physical exercise.
Ø As children age, the tendency is to enroll them into some sort of group or sporting team based on interest and availability. In a UK study released in March 2009, it was found that the cost of sport and cultural activities rose by 67% over the past 10 years. Compounding this rise in costs is the decreased cost for technological products like video games, DVDs, cell phones, et al; which fell between 17 – 29% depending on the category.
Ø Let’s not forget about protecting children from harm. There are about 16,200,000 Google matches for the search phrase “protecting children”. Everything from sex, to predators, violence, food, the environment, to you name it: there’s a way to protect your child from it. Today’s parents have more information at their fingertips on the perils and cautions of raising a child then those of earlier years. Being cautious and apprehensive becomes natural, as a result of being more aware of the risks. I wrote an earlier piece on “Fear”, and how rules and practices are enacted just on the anticipation of something wrong…this carries into the home life as well.
Ø Certain stereotypical perceptions can affect a willingness to engage in organized activities. There is the “hockey parent” who is affectionately known as overbearing and verbally abusive; who can in affect cause individuals to lose interest in getting their children involved just because they don’t want to expose themselves or their children to this type of boorish behavior.
Ø And then there’s the issue of competitiveness. According to the National Alliance for Sports (US) some 20 million kids register each year for a myriad of sports activities. However, approximately 70% of them quit playing by the age of 13, and never play them again. The number one reason according to the National Youth Sports Coaches Association is that they quit because it stopped being fun. As children age, the introduction of ‘winning’ versus ‘losing’ overrides the premise of playing ‘just for fun’. While I’m not advocating removing this mindset…in fact, I believe it is essential to a child’s preparedness for adulthood; there remains a lack of objectives around ‘house league’ versus ‘competitive (rep/select) league’ play. While it’s okay to lose a ‘house league’ game, one shouldn’t feel demeaned by their coach/parent/peer just because they chose to play at that level. As it is, they chose to play at that level either for the reason that they didn’t want to play competitively, or lacked the ability (something that parents far too often interject their opinions).
We have a ways to go to remove barriers impeding healthy active lifestyles in youth. Everything from affordability to setting standards and expectations of play. At the risk of sounding like grandpa on the front porch, sipping lemonade and spinning tales of old…I remember when I was involved in coaching soccer in London, Ontario: we had simple rules for play; non-sponsored teams; simple rules for the parents; (a rule that after 4 weeks of play, we could move players around to even up the teams – although parents of kids on the stronger teams opposed this ideology, especially if their kid was the one to move to a weaker team); substitutions were structured to ensure fair play for all; we kept score, and posted the standings; everyone made the playoffs. Most importantly, there was open communication to all parents and players. While it wasn’t a perfect system, I would have to say it was by far the most enjoyable for me as a coach, parent, and participant (we later started an adult mini-soccer league using the same guidelines…it was a hit!)
It is also imperative that we look at the affordability of participation. All too often, youth are left behind due to the high cost in being active. Much like the high cost of healthy eating, just being physically active also carries a healthy price tag (pun intended).

What's In A Name?

In the City of Hamilton, Ontario a movement is afoot from some Councilors to ensure the protection of the currently named Henderson Hospital, named after Nora-Francis Henderson, the first woman on Hamilton council and social activist. Hamilton Health Sciences (HHS), who manage the operations of Henderson Hospital, received a gift of $20 million from Charles and Margaret Juravinski to aid in the redevelopment of Henderson Hospital. Overall, the Juravinski’s have contributed around $43 million to community health-care causes, including a major contribution to the neighbouring Juravinski Cancer Centre. In exchange for their kindness, HHS stated that the hospital will now be named the Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre.

Under the new redevelopment project, due to be completed in summer 2010, the hospital will have expanded in size and resources. One could argue that it is a brand new hospital. And, not to be forgotten, HHS plans on naming a wing of the (re)new(ed) hospital in Henderson’s name. The curious point in all this is that this started some three years ago with nary a peep from neighbours and councilors regarding the name change. However now that they are drawing to completion, and most likely ceremonies are being planned and booked, folks are starting to voice their displeasure in changing the name.

City Councilors Tom Jackson, Terry Whitehead and Scott Duvall who rule the roost around the hospital grounds are taking up a fight with HHS begging them to keep Nora-Francis Henderson’s name alive on the front of the hospital. For the record, these same three were members of the ill-fated committee aimed at bringing the NHL’s Phoenix Coyotes to Hamilton, of which included the allowance to sell the naming rights of Copps Coliseum (named after former Hamilton Mayor Victor Copps). From a political angle, one could assume that both the HHS and area Councilors failed to properly communicate the change to the community three years ago; however that would open a nice finger –pointing exercise not worthy of anyone’s time.

Named ‘public’ buildings are usually done so to honour, to recognize, or to brand a person or product/service; whether done so as a courtesy or as a sold proprietary license. The application of these ‘names’ seem to differ depending on the building applied. Sports facilities have a long-standing tradition in offering up the naming ‘rights’ to companies as a means to generate revenue for the host team. Libraries apply names in either recognition or through gift-giving. Hospitals on the other hand tend to be more representative of the community in which they reside (at least in Canada). A cursory view of the list of Canadian hospital names shows no ‘privately’ named hospitals. If we were to look at Ontario’s powerhouse of health care resources, Toronto we’d see that it is managed by the University Health Network (UHN). They once received a single donation of $37 million towards the development of cardiac research at the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, situated within the Toronto General Hospital.

So was it wrong to offer the name change to the Juravinski’s in return for their contribution? Probably.

Did HHS communicate to the politicians the change? Yep.

Did the politicians voice their concern at the time? My guess would be no, and I’d say it was because they saw the value and the reasoning at the time. But now the phones are ringing from disgruntled citizens expressing their displeasure, and as a habit they go out looking for a fight…instead of communicating the facts from the start.

It is indeed sad that the Henderson name will be removed from the front of the hospital, and a new name will grace its place. It’s a wonder that HHS didn’t look to give the location a new name like Hamilton Mountain Hospital, with the Henderson Wing & the Juravinski Centre, in order to promote Hamilton. It would appear that HHS moved too quickly in the offer of the name in return for their generousity, and now the Juravinski’s are looking like the bad guys. As it stands now, a precedent as been set for future contributors, who are now going to be looking for something more than just their name on a wall within a larger institution.

How Stable Are Electricity Prices?

In an article published in the October 3rd issue of The Hamilton Spectator, Hamilton Horizons was appealing to the Ontario Energy Board to increase rates by about $0.32/month to homeowners, and $0.80/month for businesses. Their reasoning: because of a revenue shortfall of more than $2.8 million due to the shutdown of US Steel Canada. So what’s a half-a-dollar between friends? Let’s go deeper…
According to Hamilton Horizon’s spokesperson Sandy Manners, the reason for the request was due to fixed costs of supplying and servicing an electrical grid. Furthermore, Horizon sets its rates based on projected revenue. To that, Manners states that while they have managed to avoid increases the past two years due to added efficiencies, there is only so far that they can go. Translation: by using (or consuming) less hydro, your rates will actually increase because the costs associated with managing the electrical grid are fixed.
Now I’m not a business major, but I would suspect that there are not a lot of businesses out there who wouldn’t set their rates based on projected revenue. If Tim Horton’s set their coffee prices based on consumption, then theoretically prices would rise every time a location closed, or a competitor opened up nearby causing a reduction in customers, therefore less cups of coffee being purchased. It just doesn’t happen that way in the private sector. Hamilton Horizon is municipally owned, and therefore holds the power (pun intended).
Adding insult to injury on this ‘because we’re getting less revenue, I have to charge you more’ debacle, the Ontario Government is pushing the Smart Meter “Time of Use” rates to be in place sometime in 2010. For my household, that actually means another increase in electrical rates. Our household does not operate on a typical 9-5 lifestyle. Doing laundry at 10 o’clock at night is not an option, and leaving it to the weekend will mean less travel and consumerism, as we’ll be at home doing all the ‘heavy-load’ electrical chores (laundry, yard work, et al) in order to get the same rates that we are receiving today. So here we are stuck in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario. With the push on for electrifying our petroleum-dependant resources (cars, rapid-transit, et al), coupled with calls for restraining our everyday electrical-dependant resources (lights, appliances, et al); it almost appears as if there is an attempt to maintain a level demand system for electricity, all under the guise of protecting Mother Earth. With the news that there is a limit to how far one electrical grid can go to be efficient before fees increase, leaves a bit of a sour taste in ones mouth about the truth surrounding the fixed cost efficiencies of electricity versus the volatile costs of petroleum. I’m not sure they’re much different anymore.

Peak Oil: A Crisis Now or a Fear of a Crisis. (Thinking out loud)

Peak oil should be identified as the mid-point of available oil reserves, nothing more, and nothing less. Like most ‘curves’ in available resources or materials, there is a finite reserve that has a beginning and an end. Somewhere in the middle is the peak. Prognosticators have indicated we are close to arriving at that peak, and therefore drastic measures are needed to slow down the arrival time.
Economists and Environmentalists are both predicting a similar outcome: that oil prices are set to be much higher than what they are today, albeit with vastly different reasons. We already got a glimpse of this in July 2008 when oil hit $147 a barrel. Yet, it quickly fell to $33 a barrel before stabilizing at around the $70 a barrel price, only slightly higher than it was in 2005.
Today, we can find many books, blogs, and articles on what we should and should not be doing to preserve not only our oil reserves, but the planet itself. The proliferation of ‘greening’ our home and workplace, to ways and tips to ‘protect’ the environs in which we live. There’s no doubt about it, the generation which follows us will be more acutely aware of the consequences of their actions…whether good, bad, or indifferent.
A few years ago I happened upon a book titled “God Wants You To Be Rich”, written by Paul Zane Pilzer. If you get a chance, pick it up at your local library or listen to it on-line. Pilzer is an economist, but with a very keen sense on why and how we approached the world we live in today. His take on the progression of technology, coupled with his apotheosis that there is no such thing as limited resources, since all resources are man-made (or at least their use is man-made), thereby meaning all resources are limitless.
Pilzer’s best example of this was the history of how and why we came to use oil reserves today. Dating back to the use of whale oil, and including the infamous ‘gasoline’ shortage of the early ‘70s. Whenever mankind has faced a crisis, either real or implied, Pilzer identifies (and correctly so) that we have the capacity to adapt our lifestyle to minimize the impact of said crisis.
Since I have you in a reading mood, take a spin over to “Fear: The History of a Political Idea” written by Corey Robin. The opening paragraph notes that “…fear is the first emotion experienced by a character in the Bible. Not desire, not shame, but fear” Robin takes the reader through the consequences of not responding to ‘fear’, and goes further to identify on how ‘fear’ has shaped policies and laws created over time.While we may or may not be close to attaining ‘peak oil’, the fact that there is a ‘fear’ of what can happen once this occurs, is spurning change. While Pilzer embarks on a journey that equates change with logical adaptation, Robin draws on our emotional weakness which causes change. Who knows, maybe it’s a bit of both.