And not a peep from our politicians who are supposed to protect us from those type of thefts.

But it happened last year in broad daylight. City planners decided in 2007 that to prevent any emotional concerns and misunderstandings by residents, they would essentially “pre-zone” surplus school lands and allow single family dwellings to be constructed.

No more messy public meetings and potential public controversies for the school board, no irksome rezoning applications that just get in the way of good planning, and no more noisy homeowner groups complaining about their rights.

Instead, school board officials can now quietly dispose of their land at the best price possible, and developers can be assured of a swift and efficient planning process without facing such irritating problems like an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.

It’s all about good planning and safeguarding neighbourhoods, say planning staff.

So why did they do it? Planning staff argued they wanted to make the surplus school board land compatible with the existing neighbourhoods, while also cutting some red tape.

“It was advanced by staff based on good planning,” said economic development and planning general manager Tim McCabe.

Maybe in theory the decision was about good planning, but it has eliminated residents’ rights to voice what they want to happen in their own community.

“We’ve changed a bylaw that in fact disenfranchises residents,” said Stoney Creek Councillor Brad Clark. “It’s a done deal preventing the public from commenting. I regret it has happened the way it has.”

Although councillors' sentiments to reverse the bylaw is laudable, they shoulder considerable blame for the city usurping the democratic rights of residents.

Most councillors recently acknowledged they didn’t know what they were voting on, nor the implications of the bylaw. City staff say they advertised the public meeting, but nobody came. But as some councillors point out, even Albert Einstein couldn’t translate what the meeting was about from the advertisement.

And by the way, to the chagrin of politicians, city staff informed school board officials about the bylaw, but somehow forgot to tell residents, and councillors.

But it was only when the public school board started selling off its properties that councillors quickly discovered how far the bylaw curtailed residents’ rights.

“The public doesn’t feel they have a say,” said Councillor Scott Duvall, who has two neighbourhoods affected by school property disposals.

He points out within 10 years there will be 17 public schools scheduled to close. What will happen to all that green space residents have taken for granted these years believing it would for their use in perpetuity?

“A lot of people will be up in arms,” said Mr. Duvall.

City planning staff argue the public isn’t shut out of the process. Residents can voice their objections during the site plan process, or during a draft subdivision application meeting. But this is a classic case of installing fire extinguishers in an already burnt out house.

So what solutions are councillors dreaming up to solve the problem. How about creating another school board-city committee to discuss how to dispose of surplus school properties?

But wasn’t that one of the goals of the current school board city liaison committee that has yet to meet?

The school board has been running roughshod over Hamilton’s neighbourhoods for years creating havoc with its secretive land disposal process, most notably in Dundas. And councillors have sat back, wringing their hands and asking for absolution from the public.

It’s time councillors got tough with the school board and defend the rights of their citizens.

This latest democratic theft from Hamilton residents should provoke a call to action by councillors to reverse the bylaw and put the democratic rights where they belong, in the hands of the public and not in the slippery hands of school board officials or developers.