Let’s see evidence before final Hess decision
THE SPECTATOR’S VIEW
No doubt about it: The fact that Hess Village bar owners have to pay a premium for extra policing to deal with rowdiness and violence isn’t equitable. Hess may be unique in Ontario, possibly even Canada, in that regard. Hamilton’s other successful party strip in the Augusta Street area doesn’t have security premiums. But that said, the levy is there for a reason. Hess Village has a track record for more rowdy and violent behaviour than comparable entertainment districts. The owners argue that is no longer the case, that changing demographics, fewer establishments and more competition have led to much lower attendance and fewer problems. Owner advocates like councillors Jason Farr and Matthew Green agree. Interestingly, though, police don’t. At the committee meeting where Farr’s motion to kill the contentious bylaw was passed, police argued that even today extra enforcement is still needed.
Police didn’t provide statistics, such as incident reports, at the meeting so their opinion is anecdotal. And they have a vested interest in seeing the extra security maintained, because if it’s not and the demand is still there, regular police, as opposed to paid-duty officers, will have to pick up the slack, which has ramifications for manpower and budgets.
Then again, the bar owners and their advocates didn’t provide statistics, either, so their case is also anecdotal. What they say about the number of bars decreasing — it has been as high as 15 but now stands at seven — is no doubt true. Fewer bars mean less booze sold and probably less trouble. Attendance is also down, they say, thanks to increased competition.
Fair enough. But before any final decisions are made by council — possibly next week — let’s make sure they are based on evidence, not anecdotes.
If the owners and their advocates are correct and that is reflected in evidence, there is no justification for continuing the extra-policing levy. Even if the evidence shows a decrease, but still reflects higher than average incidents, there’s an argument to be made in favour of equity, or at least a fee reduction.
But back in 2015, when the city agreed to split the extra policing costs, statistics still showed a much higher concentration of problems.
Bottom line: We need new research and evidence from police and other relevant sources. That must include comparative data for other areas of the city, including, but not limited to, the Augusta Street strip.
Once we have that a decision can be rendered based on more than vested interest and politics. Hopefully, the evidence supports ending the security levy. But if it doesn’t, councillors will have a hard time explaining killing-by-bylaw now when they didn’t do so last time they looked at the Hess Village situation.