But in this case my understanding is that she was ready and able to do the work. She had engaged with the engineers who assessed the building.
Typically in the past when the CBO has done this it's because they had given an order to comply to the owner to do it first and the owner's hadn't responded. Here the only reason the city got involved is because she couldn't get the eviction done so they processed that (which I have issue with, but separate). Once the city secured the eviction - why can't she carry out the demo?
The City can only secure the eviction if they're doing the work. Imagine what would happen if they secured the eviction and then the owner decided not to do the work.
We'd be screaming bloody murder that the City let that happen.
Well I hope we get a confirmation that she's paying for it then.
I think the issue I've had through all of this is a lack of a statement from her. She needs to be transparent here. I don't know why she keeps letting this go on to new stages without making a fully transparent statement.
Unfortunately when it comes to city resources being used for her benefit she just doesn't get to be a private citizen anymore. It's unfortunately just the cost of her role, and I think she was aware that's the case when she asked for this job.
Other than a building inspector and legal staff, no other city resources are being used. The work is done by a private contractor, who bills the city, who then bills the property owner. If anything, this will cost Horvath more.
"City contractors" are private contractors hired by the city to do the work. Heck, it could be the same contractor she was going to use. This type of work is added to the property tax bill, and I suspect that it would be more than she was going to pay (last minute work, municipal fees, etc). Seeing as this is out in the media, this is more transparent then other emergency orders.
I said we're assuming it will be added to the property tax bill.
I haven't seen a statement from her or the city confirming that's the case.
I want to see a statement that confirms she will be 100% responsible for all legal, construction, and ancillary costs related to this case. And I think Hamilton tax payers have a right to see a break-down of those costs.
It's a massive liability for the Mayor to be involved in something like this, no matter how transparent the process is. I don't care that she's a landlord, but I do care that she's knowingly renting out an unsafe property.
it's her Ex, I think the nature of his tenancy is a personal issue. I have issues with just about everything else, but I'll give her a pass on him being in the house.
I get that it's probably a very messy situation and she might need to be an arms-length caregiver of sorts, but it is ultimately her responsibility as landlord and homeowner to keep the property safe and per the engineer's summary, there is a risk to the public as well as the tenant.
It's really unfortunate that it reached this point and that it's now a public matter, but it should nonetheless come with consequences.
100% - she needs to go full transparency on this. The fact that she hasn't made a statement is just fucking wild. She should be releasing a full statement and timeline and she should have a press event with no holds bars question period.
The fact that she didn't do that before the first trial is just crazy. This is the most predictable PR issue I've ever seen. If she thought this would just blow over that in and of itself is an expression of such poor executive judgement she should be disqualified from the job.
But I'll also admit, I'm not surprised she hasn't said anything.
I think this is serious enough she might be weighing whether or not to resign. This isn't a matter of opinion or spin, she could be violating the Residential Tenancies Act.
Its actually not clear if she is violating the rta. Its very unclear whether whether he is paying rent to stay there, which is necessary for the rta to apply. He is also making some sort of legal claim to partial ownership of the property, and they are in a legal dispute over it. He also appears to be obstructing work to some degree.
So its not clear if this is a landlord/tenant situation at all.
But at this point the public needs an explanation.
Absolutely. The best-case scenario here is that she's got a property on her hands that's a risk to the public, but like you say, it's not clear if she's breaking the law. We need more to go on than "this is an ongoing legal matter" and if she can't provide that, resignation is really the only appropriate next step.
It could get really nasty if there's lingering questions during next year's campaign and I don't think it's right for her family to have to endure that.
And after she signed the Hamilton Renoviction by-law too.
If she resigns that wouldn't be unreasonable.
But I think she can provide enough light that there's an explanation. I think this is a culmination of a thousand issues - and all of them have a reasonable potential explanation - the issue is she's let it accumulate.
100%. It might not be her fault, but it's still her responsibility. It's not fair to her that this has gone public, but politics is rarely fair and she knows that better than most after 20+ years in the game.
How many houses out there in Hamilton are in the same situation as this one, but this one gets the city forced emergency work as quickly as this one did?
A maybe tenant, her ex, lives there. Unclear if he pays rent or has an agreement to stay for free there. He also is claiming some sort of partial ownership in this home.
House is in deplorable condition - falling apart, mold, unsafe. He is refusing to leave.
Mayor and this guy have some longstanding legal disputes around the property.
The city tried once to issue an emergency demo order, it was overturned as the city never actually inspected the property (the guy there would not let them in), they got another one that's legit and now the work is being done.
They were Commonwealth, according to the last article I read on this. So it does seem suspicious that he would have no claim to the house, as Howarth is claiming. They would normally have joint ownership.
Edit: commonlaw jeez, should be obvious autocorrect but no, not on this sub.
Common law partners do not have automatic property rights in Ontario- that is generally reserved for married spouses. His claim would have to be based on unjust enrichment or constructive trust which are not super easy to prove and usually involve drawn out legal proceedings as is happening in this case.
Oh I didn't know that. I thought it was pretty standard for property and assets to be considered the same way as married couples, because they made such a big deal si many years ago about some change related to it. I was too young to care about the details and too old to remember clearly now.
Joey Coleman broke the story but tl;dr the Mayor rents a house to her ex and the house has in poor enough shape that it needs to be demolished in the opinion of at least one structural engineer.
Do we know if he pays rent? The articles refer to him as a tenant but I always thought it was unclear if he was paying rent or just living there because he's her ex-husband.
He's her common law ex partner, not her ex husband. And unless it was their property or they contributed in buying or maintaining it common law partners don't usually get rights to property like you would in a divorce after being married. He was also charged with criminally harassing her after they broke up, in like 2013.
I don't think it's clear if he's been paying rent or not but it all sounds pretty messy with him living there for more than a decade after they broke up. I don't know if the mayor abused her powers in this situation but it's not like this all started a few months ago, what we're seeing is the end of what seems like a very messy breakup. As much as people are taking issue with Horwath and the city I certainly wouldn't assume anything he says is true either.
what were seeing is the end of what seems like a very messy breakup.
Yeah, I think that's the only thing we can say definitively. I think he's living there because it was the path of least resistance to just let him stay there after they separated. I can't imaging Horvath filing criminal harassment charges, and then also demanding rent but that's really speculation on my part and other's are entitled to their opinions. It definitely isn't a clear-cut RTA matter.
From what I see, Horwath owns this rental unit that her ex-husband lives in. It's a 2 unit house, and only he is living there. The condition of the house has fallen into a state where the structural integrity of the house now risks people and the other homes next to it. Horwath has tried many times to get him out of the unit but he refuses.
Now, the fuzzy area is, is this an issue because it really is an issue? Or is it because it's Horwath? I think it is probably an issue, but I think it's getting fast tracked and higher attention because it's Horwath. It really seems like a lovers quarrel that expanded into a tenant vs landlord quarrel and that landlord is mayor influencing how the City does things. Which then gets the Judge involved quicker than a normal Tenant vs Landlord issue.
It's a very serious issue, the Residential Tenancy Act states "A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards."
If a structural engineer has determined that the home is unsafe, that's a clear violation of the act. Doesn't matter how it came to this point, it's Horwath's responsibility.
I don’t really agree. The risks for the surrounding residents is real, this has reached critical levels. A hike in deplorable condition should not affect my home, period. The city has a responsibility to fast track cases like these. It seems to me that this is a story because it’s the mayor who’s involved as a character, nothing more.
I’m sure there are lots… but most landlords are happy to continue to collect rent or speculators are happier to sit on the property as long as possible to delay demolition credits.
It’s not like the demolition is free. The property owner has to pay for it, either through approved demolition or they pay the city for having it done.
The Spectator has asked repeatedly to speak to the mayor about how the rental home became so unsafe it prompted both an engineer and the city’s own top building official to recommend demolition.
Horwath has so far directed questions to her lawyer, James Brown.
This is just one more example of there being two sets of rules in the City of Hamilton. One for the rich/influential and the other for the rest of us.
At this point Horwath really needs to release a statement explaining wtf is going on here. There are too many legitimate questions for it to remain an entirely private issue.
We encourage users to support paid journalism. The Spec has affordable subscriptions and you can access the paper's articles online with your Hamilton Public Library card. If you do not have a library card yet, sign up for an instant digital one here. It also gives you instant free access to eBooks, eAudiobooks, music, online learning tools and research databases.
If you cannot access The Spec in either of these ways, try archive.ph or 12ft to view without a paywall
Does anyone know if the empty part of this house is the vacant unit that caused her conflict of interest in the vacant unit tax vote? This house apparently has two units, with the ex living in one of them. Does she own multiple unfit to live in houses around the city?
Where’s all the weird Horwath defenders who preface every comment on negative stories about the mayor with “I’m not a fan of hers, but…” and then proceed to defend every action imaginable?
How do we know she hasn't tried, and much like with the City Building Inspectors, he has refused entry to anyone trying to visit the property associated with Horwath?
The more I read about this, the more I think she should have divested herself of this eyesore, and the guy inside with it (you've heard of pets looking like their owners? What about tenants looking like their homes?). Wasn't the guy charged with stalking her like a decade ago?
Brutal all around - brutal for her for letting it get to this stage (clearly a victim in some regard here), and then dragging the City Staff into it given the legal steps she has had to take, but take Joey's slant into consideration too, which is very apparent even to someone who isn't a Horwath fan.
I think others here are right on the money that she should release a statement, this train (story) has left the station, jumped the gorge, and is currently running over people left-and-right like a Trolley problem from Philosophy.
The issue is that a Lawyer isn't seeing her get muckraked in the court of public opinion, and the lawyer probably has very good reasons to not be saying anything or risk undermining whatever it is they are doing in court to get to a satisfactory conclusion. Her PR people are probably having heart attacks with every drip drip drip of this story.
I guess its good that this is coming out now, rather than in September or October of next year during an election race.
Has anyone else found this funny and specifically questioned howarths choice on a partner? I mean you are the mayor of Hamilton and your partner (ex) sounds like someone who is willing to live a very poor quality life because why? He can't get a place somewhere else?
Horwath has her issues and I don't love how this is being handled, but we really shouldn't be holding women accountable for the behavior of their shitty exes IMO. Him being gross is not on her, and with how this has all blown up in sure she's regretting her association with this guy enough
If you changed the word "women" with "any individual", then I can agree with you. Male or female a person shouldn't be held accountable for an ex's behavior.
If our mayor was a male and chose a female partner that ends up squatting in a tear down house I would have said the exact same thing. It's just signs of character at the end of the day regardless if it's a male or female.
Someone made a good point that it could also be mental health. In that case We shouldn't even be looking at the situation further.
It's still interesting to note that Horwath despite her squeaky clean politician act, seems to live a kind of trashy life. Not to mention, she doesn't seem all that qualified for the job. It's just lends further credence to the fact that she might be a grifter that knows how to politic-speak, and doesn't actually have any good ideas. She coasted in the NDP opposition seat for a near quarter century, only to resign and sleepwalk into the mayorship despite barely having a campaign.
I'm not suggesting her ex is her responsibility in any way, nor her weird kid, but it's just another notch on the "maybe this person isn't as well accomplished and put-together as she seems to tell everyone she is".
Not a Horwath fan by any means, but I think her main experience prior to her getting elected was working for the legal-aid clinic McQueston Legal and Community Services, where she did tenant advocacy and worked to co-create Hamilton Action Days. This was in the early to mid-90s, and then she parlayed this experience into winning her first Council seat in 1997, and has stayed in elected politics since.
Contrast that to Keanin Loomis, who worked as a Lawyer in Washington DC, before coming here and helping launch the Innovation Factory at the McMaster Innovation Park, then started work with the Chamber of Commerce in 2013, then (now?) the Hamilton Oshawa Port Authority and the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (and yes, I know you donated and supported him so I am likely Keanin-splain' to you)
They are both "career advocacy people" just advocating for different things.
I guess I reserve the term grifter for someone who really has no work experience prior to running for politics and is there to advocate for regressive policies that are of a personal interest, like Sam Oosterhoff.
I've never gotten this vibe from her. Maybe she just seemed that way to you because she was the counterpoint to the trashiest politician from the trashiest political family in Canada's history, the Fords, all of whom are literal criminals.
But really, politicians of all stripes, from Tony Clement, John Tory and Patrick Brown to Kathleen Wynne and Belinda Stronach (ok it's mostly conservatives) have had trashy personal/family affairs seep into their political life. For the most part, it never affected their ability to do their jobs.
There are enough politicians with normal lives who do a shit job at governing that it should be clear there is no correlation.
Cheating on her then-husband with her now-wife was what I was alluding to, but to be honest, it was the only non-conservative politician I could think of who had any sort of marital trouble that went public.
That's exactly what I was thinking as well. You used way better words to describe the situation than me. Definitely getting those vibes from her. That's why I said her choice of partner and not necessarily the partner himself.
We are talking about our mayor. The mayor of a large Canadian city. Of a country that's part of the G7. Let's think about that for a sec. This is soap opera
I dunno, people are weird especially during and after breakups that aren’t mutual (I don’t actually know the background but this seems like it wasn’t a mutual parting of ways) Maybe this is why he’s an ex because she started seeing the red-flags. He comes across as someone trying to milk it.
Her choice of partner is irrelevant. What is relevant is how this thing has been managed by City Hall and whether there’s some conflict of interest or abuse of her position.
By bringing it into the public eye given the events since then, unfortunately she will also be judged on the rest of it.
My understanding is that historically he’s been a bit of a jerk, to put it mildly. What was behind that is unknown, but regardless he seems to have put her through a lot back then.
It also seems him living there is some of arrangement from their separation, and it’s unclear what was driving him to not let her or her representatives in. Since she’s suing him for over a million, and I’ve heard he makes some sort of claim to the place, perhaps he has some sort of legal advice not to let her in, who knows? For example, a marital home claim may not be as assured if a common-law spouse no longer lives there.
The demolition order would have left him homeless during a very cold snap and right before Christmas. So if the vacate and demolition order were strategic to leverage him out of there, that’s a pretty heartless move.
You are absolutely right. If there is mental health it's not really funny.
If it's not mental health, I guess it's not funny either. Because we have allowed people of this character making these personal choices to run our city.
Each year, r/Hamilton raises funds for Hamilton Food Share, the shipping & receiving hub for the food that supplies 22 food banks and meal programs across the city. Reddit has kindly offered to match our donations up to $15,000 USD through December 31st so your dollar can go further, with each $1 providing $10 in food for these hunger relief programs. Get the details here.
Why is it being done by city contractors? Why aren't they her contractors?
I thought the city was just fighting for the eviction notice and paying those legal fees?
Will she be billed for the work?
We need way more transparency on this.
City does emergency work like this pretty regularly in distressed situations and adds the cost to the property tax bill.
It’s not unusual.
But in this case my understanding is that she was ready and able to do the work. She had engaged with the engineers who assessed the building.
Typically in the past when the CBO has done this it's because they had given an order to comply to the owner to do it first and the owner's hadn't responded. Here the only reason the city got involved is because she couldn't get the eviction done so they processed that (which I have issue with, but separate). Once the city secured the eviction - why can't she carry out the demo?
The City can only secure the eviction if they're doing the work. Imagine what would happen if they secured the eviction and then the owner decided not to do the work.
We'd be screaming bloody murder that the City let that happen.
Fair point,
Well I hope we get a confirmation that she's paying for it then.
I think the issue I've had through all of this is a lack of a statement from her. She needs to be transparent here. I don't know why she keeps letting this go on to new stages without making a fully transparent statement.
Unfortunately when it comes to city resources being used for her benefit she just doesn't get to be a private citizen anymore. It's unfortunately just the cost of her role, and I think she was aware that's the case when she asked for this job.
Other than a building inspector and legal staff, no other city resources are being used. The work is done by a private contractor, who bills the city, who then bills the property owner. If anything, this will cost Horvath more.
The city's lawyers went to court twice for this. Those are city resources.
"legal staff". Next.
"City contractors" are private contractors hired by the city to do the work. Heck, it could be the same contractor she was going to use. This type of work is added to the property tax bill, and I suspect that it would be more than she was going to pay (last minute work, municipal fees, etc). Seeing as this is out in the media, this is more transparent then other emergency orders.
My issue is that they'll be paid by the city - and we're assuming the cost will be added to the property tax bill.
I don't think I'm out of line to ask for a confirmation of that.
Well, of course they will be paid by the city. That's why the cost is added to the property tax bill.
I said we're assuming it will be added to the property tax bill.
I haven't seen a statement from her or the city confirming that's the case.
I want to see a statement that confirms she will be 100% responsible for all legal, construction, and ancillary costs related to this case. And I think Hamilton tax payers have a right to see a break-down of those costs.
It's a massive liability for the Mayor to be involved in something like this, no matter how transparent the process is. I don't care that she's a landlord, but I do care that she's knowingly renting out an unsafe property.
it's her Ex, I think the nature of his tenancy is a personal issue. I have issues with just about everything else, but I'll give her a pass on him being in the house.
I get that it's probably a very messy situation and she might need to be an arms-length caregiver of sorts, but it is ultimately her responsibility as landlord and homeowner to keep the property safe and per the engineer's summary, there is a risk to the public as well as the tenant.
It's really unfortunate that it reached this point and that it's now a public matter, but it should nonetheless come with consequences.
100% - she needs to go full transparency on this. The fact that she hasn't made a statement is just fucking wild. She should be releasing a full statement and timeline and she should have a press event with no holds bars question period.
The fact that she didn't do that before the first trial is just crazy. This is the most predictable PR issue I've ever seen. If she thought this would just blow over that in and of itself is an expression of such poor executive judgement she should be disqualified from the job.
But I'll also admit, I'm not surprised she hasn't said anything.
I think this is serious enough she might be weighing whether or not to resign. This isn't a matter of opinion or spin, she could be violating the Residential Tenancies Act.
Edited because I'm not a lawyer
Its actually not clear if she is violating the rta. Its very unclear whether whether he is paying rent to stay there, which is necessary for the rta to apply. He is also making some sort of legal claim to partial ownership of the property, and they are in a legal dispute over it. He also appears to be obstructing work to some degree.
So its not clear if this is a landlord/tenant situation at all.
But at this point the public needs an explanation.
Absolutely. The best-case scenario here is that she's got a property on her hands that's a risk to the public, but like you say, it's not clear if she's breaking the law. We need more to go on than "this is an ongoing legal matter" and if she can't provide that, resignation is really the only appropriate next step.
It could get really nasty if there's lingering questions during next year's campaign and I don't think it's right for her family to have to endure that.
And after she signed the Hamilton Renoviction by-law too.
If she resigns that wouldn't be unreasonable.
But I think she can provide enough light that there's an explanation. I think this is a culmination of a thousand issues - and all of them have a reasonable potential explanation - the issue is she's let it accumulate.
100%. It might not be her fault, but it's still her responsibility. It's not fair to her that this has gone public, but politics is rarely fair and she knows that better than most after 20+ years in the game.
How many houses out there in Hamilton are in the same situation as this one, but this one gets the city forced emergency work as quickly as this one did?
Exactly this. Remember to vote in 2026.
What is the situation? That link is just a bunch of popups and subscription nonsense.
The mayor owns this house. It's a rental.
A maybe tenant, her ex, lives there. Unclear if he pays rent or has an agreement to stay for free there. He also is claiming some sort of partial ownership in this home.
House is in deplorable condition - falling apart, mold, unsafe. He is refusing to leave.
Mayor and this guy have some longstanding legal disputes around the property.
The city tried once to issue an emergency demo order, it was overturned as the city never actually inspected the property (the guy there would not let them in), they got another one that's legit and now the work is being done.
They were Commonwealth, according to the last article I read on this. So it does seem suspicious that he would have no claim to the house, as Howarth is claiming. They would normally have joint ownership.
Edit: commonlaw jeez, should be obvious autocorrect but no, not on this sub.
All Canadians are part of the Commonwealth. Lol.
Effing autocorrect 😂
Common law partners do not have automatic property rights in Ontario- that is generally reserved for married spouses. His claim would have to be based on unjust enrichment or constructive trust which are not super easy to prove and usually involve drawn out legal proceedings as is happening in this case.
Oh I didn't know that. I thought it was pretty standard for property and assets to be considered the same way as married couples, because they made such a big deal si many years ago about some change related to it. I was too young to care about the details and too old to remember clearly now.
Joey Coleman broke the story but tl;dr the Mayor rents a house to her ex and the house has in poor enough shape that it needs to be demolished in the opinion of at least one structural engineer.
Do we know if he pays rent? The articles refer to him as a tenant but I always thought it was unclear if he was paying rent or just living there because he's her ex-husband.
He's her common law ex partner, not her ex husband. And unless it was their property or they contributed in buying or maintaining it common law partners don't usually get rights to property like you would in a divorce after being married. He was also charged with criminally harassing her after they broke up, in like 2013.
I don't think it's clear if he's been paying rent or not but it all sounds pretty messy with him living there for more than a decade after they broke up. I don't know if the mayor abused her powers in this situation but it's not like this all started a few months ago, what we're seeing is the end of what seems like a very messy breakup. As much as people are taking issue with Horwath and the city I certainly wouldn't assume anything he says is true either.
Yeah, I think that's the only thing we can say definitively. I think he's living there because it was the path of least resistance to just let him stay there after they separated. I can't imaging Horvath filing criminal harassment charges, and then also demanding rent but that's really speculation on my part and other's are entitled to their opinions. It definitely isn't a clear-cut RTA matter.
Ah yes one structural engineer via zoom video chat inspecting the home.
From what I see, Horwath owns this rental unit that her ex-husband lives in. It's a 2 unit house, and only he is living there. The condition of the house has fallen into a state where the structural integrity of the house now risks people and the other homes next to it. Horwath has tried many times to get him out of the unit but he refuses.
Now, the fuzzy area is, is this an issue because it really is an issue? Or is it because it's Horwath? I think it is probably an issue, but I think it's getting fast tracked and higher attention because it's Horwath. It really seems like a lovers quarrel that expanded into a tenant vs landlord quarrel and that landlord is mayor influencing how the City does things. Which then gets the Judge involved quicker than a normal Tenant vs Landlord issue.
It's a very serious issue, the Residential Tenancy Act states "A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards."
If a structural engineer has determined that the home is unsafe, that's a clear violation of the act. Doesn't matter how it came to this point, it's Horwath's responsibility.
I don’t really agree. The risks for the surrounding residents is real, this has reached critical levels. A hike in deplorable condition should not affect my home, period. The city has a responsibility to fast track cases like these. It seems to me that this is a story because it’s the mayor who’s involved as a character, nothing more.
Definitely seems suspicious how quickly things are happening. How do you request an FOI for this kinda thing?
https://www.hamilton.ca/city-council/city-clerks-office/file-freedom-information-request
Really put a lot of effort into this one yourself..
The situation is that you should scroll slightly down and follow the very helpful, basic instructions provided to you in the automod comment
I’m sure there are lots… but most landlords are happy to continue to collect rent or speculators are happier to sit on the property as long as possible to delay demolition credits.
It’s not like the demolition is free. The property owner has to pay for it, either through approved demolition or they pay the city for having it done.
The Spectator has asked repeatedly to speak to the mayor about how the rental home became so unsafe it prompted both an engineer and the city’s own top building official to recommend demolition.
Horwath has so far directed questions to her lawyer, James Brown.
This is just one more example of there being two sets of rules in the City of Hamilton. One for the rich/influential and the other for the rest of us.
I'm really sad I can't post a James Brown GIF here
It’s okay, I’m sure he feels good
Honestly I knew that he would
At this point Horwath really needs to release a statement explaining wtf is going on here. There are too many legitimate questions for it to remain an entirely private issue.
Politicians do whatever the hell they want now adays. She doesn't have to say anything
What a crazy story.
She stands up for those that can’t afford rent! She just does it by being the slum lord. Good of her to use her political power to pad her wallet.
We encourage users to support paid journalism. The Spec has affordable subscriptions and you can access the paper's articles online with your Hamilton Public Library card. If you do not have a library card yet, sign up for an instant digital one here. It also gives you instant free access to eBooks, eAudiobooks, music, online learning tools and research databases.
If you cannot access The Spec in either of these ways, try archive.ph or 12ft to view without a paywall
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Does anyone know if the empty part of this house is the vacant unit that caused her conflict of interest in the vacant unit tax vote? This house apparently has two units, with the ex living in one of them. Does she own multiple unfit to live in houses around the city?
That's a good question. Would explain why she couldn't just get rid of it.
Where’s all the weird Horwath defenders who preface every comment on negative stories about the mayor with “I’m not a fan of hers, but…” and then proceed to defend every action imaginable?
There's not much wiggle room in the Residential Tenancies Act.
Horwath should just retire.
This looks like an ex trying to screw her over.
It is but the Horwath haters can't wrap their heads around that.
I don't hate her (I voted for her) but I also can't name anything positive she's done since she was elected.
Just cause she’s battling the ex doesn’t mean she gets preferential treatment. She can deal with it the same way every other landlord has to.
It's her responsibility to keep the building safe for habitation regardless of how unpleasant her ex may or may not be.
How do we know she hasn't tried, and much like with the City Building Inspectors, he has refused entry to anyone trying to visit the property associated with Horwath?
The more I read about this, the more I think she should have divested herself of this eyesore, and the guy inside with it (you've heard of pets looking like their owners? What about tenants looking like their homes?). Wasn't the guy charged with stalking her like a decade ago?
Brutal all around - brutal for her for letting it get to this stage (clearly a victim in some regard here), and then dragging the City Staff into it given the legal steps she has had to take, but take Joey's slant into consideration too, which is very apparent even to someone who isn't a Horwath fan.
No disagreement that this is brutal and unfair for her, but she still has responsibilities as the property owner and potentially as the landlord.
I think others here are right on the money that she should release a statement, this train (story) has left the station, jumped the gorge, and is currently running over people left-and-right like a Trolley problem from Philosophy.
The issue is that a Lawyer isn't seeing her get muckraked in the court of public opinion, and the lawyer probably has very good reasons to not be saying anything or risk undermining whatever it is they are doing in court to get to a satisfactory conclusion. Her PR people are probably having heart attacks with every drip drip drip of this story.
I guess its good that this is coming out now, rather than in September or October of next year during an election race.
Why are my taxes fixing this?
Emergency repairs are billed to the property owner.
Comical, almost could be a SNL skit.
Oh look, Andrea abusing her position yet again.
Has anyone else found this funny and specifically questioned howarths choice on a partner? I mean you are the mayor of Hamilton and your partner (ex) sounds like someone who is willing to live a very poor quality life because why? He can't get a place somewhere else?
They split nearly 15 years ago. She hasn't been with them in ages.
She's doing repairs to her property and your taxes are paying for it
Nope. The cost of repairs is added to the property tax bill.
Horwath has her issues and I don't love how this is being handled, but we really shouldn't be holding women accountable for the behavior of their shitty exes IMO. Him being gross is not on her, and with how this has all blown up in sure she's regretting her association with this guy enough
If you changed the word "women" with "any individual", then I can agree with you. Male or female a person shouldn't be held accountable for an ex's behavior.
I completely agree, but tbh if our mayor was a man I doubt he would be getting the same comments
Men can often just say "hey my ex is crazy" and we move on, it's a major trope lol
If our mayor was a male and chose a female partner that ends up squatting in a tear down house I would have said the exact same thing. It's just signs of character at the end of the day regardless if it's a male or female.
Someone made a good point that it could also be mental health. In that case We shouldn't even be looking at the situation further.
It's still interesting to note that Horwath despite her squeaky clean politician act, seems to live a kind of trashy life. Not to mention, she doesn't seem all that qualified for the job. It's just lends further credence to the fact that she might be a grifter that knows how to politic-speak, and doesn't actually have any good ideas. She coasted in the NDP opposition seat for a near quarter century, only to resign and sleepwalk into the mayorship despite barely having a campaign.
I'm not suggesting her ex is her responsibility in any way, nor her weird kid, but it's just another notch on the "maybe this person isn't as well accomplished and put-together as she seems to tell everyone she is".
Not a Horwath fan by any means, but I think her main experience prior to her getting elected was working for the legal-aid clinic McQueston Legal and Community Services, where she did tenant advocacy and worked to co-create Hamilton Action Days. This was in the early to mid-90s, and then she parlayed this experience into winning her first Council seat in 1997, and has stayed in elected politics since.
Contrast that to Keanin Loomis, who worked as a Lawyer in Washington DC, before coming here and helping launch the Innovation Factory at the McMaster Innovation Park, then started work with the Chamber of Commerce in 2013, then (now?) the Hamilton Oshawa Port Authority and the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (and yes, I know you donated and supported him so I am likely Keanin-splain' to you)
They are both "career advocacy people" just advocating for different things.
I guess I reserve the term grifter for someone who really has no work experience prior to running for politics and is there to advocate for regressive policies that are of a personal interest, like Sam Oosterhoff.
I've never gotten this vibe from her. Maybe she just seemed that way to you because she was the counterpoint to the trashiest politician from the trashiest political family in Canada's history, the Fords, all of whom are literal criminals.
But really, politicians of all stripes, from Tony Clement, John Tory and Patrick Brown to Kathleen Wynne and Belinda Stronach (ok it's mostly conservatives) have had trashy personal/family affairs seep into their political life. For the most part, it never affected their ability to do their jobs.
There are enough politicians with normal lives who do a shit job at governing that it should be clear there is no correlation.
Apart from coming out later in life, Kathleen Wynne's personal life seems pretty dull. Did I miss something?
Cheating on her then-husband with her now-wife was what I was alluding to, but to be honest, it was the only non-conservative politician I could think of who had any sort of marital trouble that went public.
There's probably a better example out there.
Ya I think being an unqualified grifter is pretty much mandatory for anyone involved in Ontario governance lmao
That's exactly what I was thinking as well. You used way better words to describe the situation than me. Definitely getting those vibes from her. That's why I said her choice of partner and not necessarily the partner himself.
We are talking about our mayor. The mayor of a large Canadian city. Of a country that's part of the G7. Let's think about that for a sec. This is soap opera
I dunno, people are weird especially during and after breakups that aren’t mutual (I don’t actually know the background but this seems like it wasn’t a mutual parting of ways) Maybe this is why he’s an ex because she started seeing the red-flags. He comes across as someone trying to milk it.
Definitely I can see that when reading about him
Her choice of partner is irrelevant. What is relevant is how this thing has been managed by City Hall and whether there’s some conflict of interest or abuse of her position.
By bringing it into the public eye given the events since then, unfortunately she will also be judged on the rest of it.
My understanding is that historically he’s been a bit of a jerk, to put it mildly. What was behind that is unknown, but regardless he seems to have put her through a lot back then.
It also seems him living there is some of arrangement from their separation, and it’s unclear what was driving him to not let her or her representatives in. Since she’s suing him for over a million, and I’ve heard he makes some sort of claim to the place, perhaps he has some sort of legal advice not to let her in, who knows? For example, a marital home claim may not be as assured if a common-law spouse no longer lives there.
The demolition order would have left him homeless during a very cold snap and right before Christmas. So if the vacate and demolition order were strategic to leverage him out of there, that’s a pretty heartless move.
He was probably interesting and quirky when younger. That morphed into mental illness as he aged up. Now she can't divest herself of him.
Sounds kind of like victim-blaming
I think a good judge of character is a very helpful skill. Especially as the mayor of Hamilton. I'm not sure why it's a victim blaming.
Funny? Not really, not given the possibility of mental health issues.
You are absolutely right. If there is mental health it's not really funny.
If it's not mental health, I guess it's not funny either. Because we have allowed people of this character making these personal choices to run our city.
Possibility? Her ex clearly has mental health issues.
And just like that Barton street is ignored for 5 another years.
Each year, r/Hamilton raises funds for Hamilton Food Share, the shipping & receiving hub for the food that supplies 22 food banks and meal programs across the city. Reddit has kindly offered to match our donations up to $15,000 USD through December 31st so your dollar can go further, with each $1 providing $10 in food for these hunger relief programs. Get the details here.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.