Municipal Election 2010

Most Candidates Oppose Stadium Funding

Of the 46 candidates who responded as at this writing, 33 or 71.7% answered "No", 6 or 13.0% answered "Yes", and 7 or 15.2% were ambivalent or undecided.

By Ryan McGreal
Published October 18, 2010

The Spectator reports today that 62.6 percent of respondents to a recent Spectator/Nanos survey of city residents oppose spending more public money on the proposed Pan Am / Ticats stadium. At the same time, 80.4 percent spending more money to address poverty.

Earlier this month, RTH contacted the candidates for the upcoming municipal election and asked:

Should we spend the Future Fund to build a Pan Am / Ticat stadium on the CP Rail Yard lands? Why or why not?

Of the 46 candidates who responded as at this writing, 33 or 71.7% answered "No", 6 or 13.0% answered "Yes", and 7 or 15.2% were ambivalent or undecided. You can read all the candidate responses on the RTH Elections site.

Mayoral Candidates

Nearly all of the mayoral candidates who responded were opposed to the plan.

Michael Baldasaro wants the Hamilton Tiger-Cats to stay in Ivor Wynne Stadium and add parking in the vacant Scott Park School property. He adds that he has heard "first hand from the Tiger-Cat Football Club's Vice Presdient that Ivor Wynne was good for another 25 years."

Mahesh Butani believes the real issue is not the stadium itself but the location, and wants to "allow the process to unfold, without casting any further aspersion on it" after the recent "trauma" around the issue. He also believes any Future Fund contribution should be a loan, not a grant.

Larry Di Ianni would treat the Future Fund money as a loan to be repaid, not as a grant. He states, "The City should never be the primary funder for any development project." He believes the City has not done enough to involve the private sector.

Fred Eisenberger reiterates that his preferred location from a city-building perspective remains the West Harbour, but that the CP Rail Yard "meets some of our city building objectives and meets the main criteria of the legacy tenant, which is to be near a highway." He believes this "compromise" can still build a valuable legacy for the city.

Edward HC Graydon believes the Longwood site is "terrible" and will "kill the real estate values in that area of the city." He hopes the Future Fund board of governors is "running away from supporting this possible location."

Andrew Haines believes the city's priorities are "feeding, clothing and sheltering our poorest citizens." He also criticizes the current Council for "screwing things up for all of us" after higher levels of government "giving Hamilton extension after extension".

Glenn Hamilton believes the Future Fund money should be loaned "as per the original mandate of the Fund." He believes in keeping the Ticats because they "are responsible for millions of dollars of Hamilton promotion each year on the global stage."

Ken Leach believes the "Future Fund should not be used to build a stadium" but could be used as a loan. He adds that the CP Rail Yard location is "pitiful" and demonstrates "a lack of process, diretion and does nothing to enhance the community at large."

Tone Marrone does not oppose using the Future Fund "for projects that justify the expenditure", but does not believe the CP Rail Yard stadium qualifies. He prefers re-opening Confederation Park, which he argues will be a better location at a lower cost.

Victor Veri wants the Future Fund invested in "other areas which will generate much more return on the investment not only financialy but for other societal benefits."

Few Supporters

Only six candidates supported the CP Rail Yard site, and another seven were ambivalent or undecided. The supporters are also more likely to be incumbent councillors, including Mayor Eisenberger and councillors Clark and Powers.

John Castle, candidate for Ward 2, wants to see more cost-benefit analysis before deciding.

James Novak, candidate for Ward 2, supports the location on the condition that most of the construction work goes to Hamilton-based labour.

Mark DiMillo, candidate for Ward 3, promises to "consult and engage" ward 3 constituents before making a decision. However, he does not believe the current location is viable given the under-funding and unresolved issues.

Giulio Cicconi, candidate for Ward 4, also wants the city to divert some money to remediate the West Harbour and redevelop the old Ivor Wynne stadium site. He believes the current council should have directed staff to conduct feasibility studies on all potential sites.

Keith Beck, candidate for Ward 7, responded that he would "defer on answering the question since it is still before council."

Brad Clark, candidate for Ward 9, argues that the Future Fund can be used for legacy projects "in any part of the city" and that the stadium is an appropriate use, since it "will qualify for Pam Am Games Legacy funding and our youth will have access to the stadium for sports training and games."

Geraldine McMullen, candidate for Ward 9, believes the stadium meets the Future Fund criteria and "will create a lasting legacy for current and future generations."

Russ Powers, candidate for Ward 13, regards the planned velodrome as "a Pan Am gem and the real legacy project".

Dayna Scime, candidate for Ward 13, would support making a small contribution from the Future Fund, "only if absolutely necessary". She wants to see more engagement with the private sector.

Neil Bos, candidate for Ward 15, suggests that the stadium could be built in Cootes Paradise or on brownfield land donated by US Steel.

Brian Gaspar, candidate for Ward 15, is "excited and enthused" but wants to limit any taxpayer burden and design the stadium with a roof. He wants a five-year payback for the investment.

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer, writer and consultant. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Ryan writes a city affairs column in Hamilton Magazine, and several of his articles have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. He also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on Twitter @RyanMcGreal. Recently, he took the plunge and finally joined Facebook.

37 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted October 18, 2010 at 11:16:29

People keep throwing out far smaller numbers like $20M or whatever for refurbishing Ivor Wynne, whereas the numbers are 10X as large when we talk about a new stadium.

Is there any reason for this? Do we not get provincial/federal money for an IW refurb, only for a new stadium?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By PAXIL (anonymous) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 13:08:53

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By cd (anonymous) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 13:20:08

I was for funding it:but not anymore! I'm even beginning to think that Mirulla's right: scrap the whole thing. Let's fix roads, sewers, and work on other vital city infrastructure. The West Harbour activists turned out to be right, after all. This should have been a 'people-first' not 'profit-first' initiative.

Bob Young: put up or shut up!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 13:36:19

The way to help people on poverty is to provide good paying jobs. A stadium creates jobs.... construction, hotel, stadium jobs, any other spinoff business.

I'll bet most of the people from the Spec poll are WH supporters being sore losers. Because most would rather see no stadium if not at the WH.

Poverty worsened or stayed the same, on Fred's watch. Suddenly Fred wants to help people on poverty?

We already pay taxes for roads and sewers and EcDev, this is found money and fed/prov money earmarked for PanAm. It'll get spent somewhere if not in Hamilton. It's one-time money it should be spent on a one-time thing, like a stadium. Exactly how would $60mil FF money help poverty?

I can't wait for the new council voting to put the stadium on Confederation Park.... beautiful icon on the Lake, Go busses use the highway, super accessible, regional stadium uses, private money because they like the location, landmark for Hamilton by the Bridge, marinas, already own the land frees up more money for the stadium, pedestrian bridge, short shuttle ride from the LRT at Eastgate, beach parties, Hamilton pride, and much more.

And this is non-sense. What politicians are going to say NO to help poverty??? It's like asking if you like babies and animals, it's a dumb question.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 13:59:39

TreyS I can think of one way $60 million could help poor people... A lot of the people who get flooded basements in the east end are at the lower side of the income scale. Investing it in upgrading sewer capacity in the area to mitigate flooding would both relieve the personal financial problems and stress flooding brings as well as lower the cost to the city for litigation and bandaid repairs associated with flooding. Since the expenses for the previously mentioned things are gone, the City can focus time and money on attempting to address other poverty related issues.

A stadium isn't really going to create long term job stability for all that many people. Putting it in a place like Confederation Park hamstrings the actual affect the stadium can have on surrounding properties as well as spinoff employment in the area...unless you count seasonal minimum wage jobs... Being a resident of that area, that needs to stay a park, it needs to be service properly and the improvements that are proposed for that area need to take place. A stadium does NOT belong there.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 14:01:21

Look saying anything other than you support WH and Fred on this site will get you down voted. It's a shame that that has happened to RTH.

RTH was created in the beginning to provide an alternative perspective to the mainstream media, that is, to provide all types of perspectives. Now it seems most readers and commenters have no tolerance to opinion and comments that don't agree with their perspective or even give pause to consider them, whether factual or commentary.

Let's try and keep RTH balanced with a variety of opinions and perspectives.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 14:07:51

I disagree Frank. We already pay taxes for sewers. FF is a one-time gift. You suggest throwing more money at RedHil's folly is a good use of the money? We already know it will take another zero to that $60mil to fix the underfunded infrastructure in the city. $60mil will not fix the problem.

Hotel jobs and other spinoff jobs around the stadium whether at RedHill or Confederation Park will create long term jobs. Interesting how only a WH location will create spin-off jobs but not at Confederation Park. Which by the way there is a lot more land along Van Wagners and the vacant campground than available at WH. Look at a map.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 14:09:47

I don't know about anyone else but I down voted you because you're comment was rediculous.

"A stadium creates jobs.... construction, hotel, stadium jobs, any other spinoff business."

These are not good paying jobs. Construction is only short-term while the stadium is being made -- and why not provide construction jobs making something we actually need?? -- and the other jobs are low paying.

"I'll bet most of the people from the Spec poll are WH supporters being sore losers. Because most would rather see no stadium if not at the WH"

I would rather see no stadium if not at the WH and it's not because I'm s "sore loser" it's because I never saw the stadium as anything more than a way to get fed/prov money to clean up the WH. As just a football stadium it's NOT worth $60 million of our Future Fund, it's only worth it if it has a bigger city benefit.

"Poverty worsened or stayed the same, on Fred's watch."

Nope poverty actually improved slightly based on vital signs, even though we were in a big recession.

"It'll get spent somewhere if not in Hamilton"

Yeah, like on an LRT system that we actually NEED and would actually USE.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By PseudonymousCoward (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 14:12:03

FF is a one-time gift.

I'm afraid you're incorrect.

Mission Statement: To preserve and manage a permanent, self-sustaining fund (the Hamilton Future Fund) as a lasting legacy for current and future generations of Hamiltonians to enjoy economic prosperity, enhanced social fabric, and enhanced community life. [emphasis added]

Unless you mean our hapless politicians are shaping it up to be a one-time gift to Bob Young, in which case you're sadly correct.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 14:18:47

Hotels need accountants, payroll, human resources, management, legal, web work, advertising... these are not good paying jobs????

Comment edited by TreyS on 2010-10-18 13:19:38

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 14:21:06

Well then fixing sewers does not fit the mandate of the FF either.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 14:21:43

TreyS someone has already posted the link to the waterfront plans for that area in another thread. Before paving over and building conservation areas why not infill and re-mediate existing vacant parcels/brownfields throughout the city? There are lots of places near WH where a hotel can be built. Instead of looking for vacant land to build on, look at vacant buildings and empty warehouses or derelict properties. Thats where investment needs to happen, not in a park.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By slodrive (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 14:22:33

I see where everyone is coming on this, but I'm just not sure I can agree. First, for those who don't know, I'm a Ticat fan, Multi-pack ticket holder and thus want to see the team stick around for...well, forever. So, note the bias early!!

I believe we live in a city with incredible potential. The natural setting of waterfront, escarpment, and forestry bookending the city-scape. Few centres can top what we have. However, I find that we have an incredible image problem that leads greatly to erosion of our city core. Simply put, people still see this is a blighted, smog covered, grungy steeltown.

By having a piece that allows us to showcase our city to the rest of the country (and, arguably, more importantly, about 50 minutes down the QEW), we can begin the conversation of what opportunities Hamilton has to offer. Instead, of constantly trying to defend its weaknesses.

Does that mean erecting a 30,000 seat stadium that's used 10 times a year will ensure everyone in Beasley has a full tummy before school? No, it won't. But, it might start to lure young professionals to downtown. It will begin to erode current conceptions of what Hamilton is like. It might increase the demand for condo living downtown. It might spur on additional development from investors who want to take a wait-and-see approach. That means, if nothing else, the values of homes rise.

There's no quick fix here. But, I think when there's government money on the table to give one of the most public facing physical icons we have a significant upgrade, I'd hate to pass it up.

I definitely recognize the hypocrisy of relative extravagance when there are bigger priorities out there. Don't get me wrong. I'm not that cold-hearted. But there are some intangible benefits that this would bring (and that the Ticats currently bring) to Hamilton.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 14:30:07

A one-time gift to Bob Young? Who will own the stadium? Hamilton, and if built properly it will be a revenue stream, like the other HECFI venues that enhance Hamilton's livability.

I don't hear anyone against Hamilton Place, which is rented by a private company -- Opera Ontario. Or anyone against Copps rented by private business. The Ticats are a tenant and private business renting a Hamilton stadium just like Opera Ontario, trade shows or the Bulldogs. Which by the way Opera Ontario and HPO are subsidized by the City and Canada Council for the Arts, because we see arts as important to the livability of the City. Well sports for some people enhance the livability just the same.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 14:31:07

like the other HECFI venues that enhance Hamilton's livability.

Great, so hire HECFI to run it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 14:43:10

It proves my point about the one-sided perspective of the commenters and voters, when commenting that 'sewers don't fulfill the FF mandate' ... which is totally true, someone just posted the mandate!!! It gets down-voted.

And pointing out that hotels provide jobs other than room service and house keeping, like I mentioned, they will need legal, accounting, payroll, advertising, web work etc. .. totally true but it gets down voted.

It's this non-sense that is turning RTH against its original mandate.

I'm done. I'm going back to work now. Work for two hotel brochures, eblast advertising and websites in Niagara Falls. I guess that work is low-paying? Which btw, I pay for downtown office space and because my business (that does work for Niagara hotels and restaurants -- businesses that will develop from a stadium), therefore I shop in Jackson Sq and use downtown business services. This is how you get a diverse economy. A hotel uses me for business services in return I use downtown lawyers and banking services. These lawyers will also need business services and all this economic activity is coming from one source, whether is a slaughter house, a steel company, a hotel or a stadium. This this is 'spin-off wealth'. Some people need to grasp how economics work.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By reality123 (anonymous) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 14:46:33

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Corinne A (anonymous) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 14:54:32

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 14:58:19

I guess your comment makes you a gentleman?

If you can't constructively contribute to the conversation I suggest you keep your name-calling to yourself.

I have contributed some 100 or so articles for this site from the very beginning. Before you make a judgement about my intelligence perhaps you want to read them.

http://raisethehammer.org/authors/8/trey...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Corinne A (anonymous) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 15:04:01

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Corinne A (anonymous) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 15:06:05

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 15:07:41

o get over it Corrine, I was writing my comment at the same time you wrote yours, it just happened to be posted second.... o gentle lady.

It's comments like yours, that detract from what could be a valuable conversation.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By stephanie mckormic (anonymous) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 15:11:46

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Corinne (anonymous) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 15:15:24

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Dave Mac Donald (anonymous) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 15:40:50


This is Sam Merulla's position and has been since the start of this mess. Merulla not only had courage for standing alone on this issue but the man has brilliantly put this issue into perspective. way to go Sam!


Many thanks for taking the time to provide me with your input. From my perspective the foundation of the problem is that the Toronto Pan Am games bid has been fueled by emotion and based on wants rather than needs of our community. The original purpose was to create a legacy for amateur sport and provide a new stadium for the Ti Cats. My contention has always been that if the Ti- Cats cannot afford the old stadium how would they afford a new stadium? Well the answer was provided by the Ti Cats with the East Mountain proposal and now Longwood which changed the original purpose to simply creating a legacy for the Ti- Cats and a potential professional soccer team in partnership with a private developer(s). This relationship with the developer(s) is what in essence allows the Ti- Cats to become sustainable but only leveraging public dollars and with a capital deficit of approx 120 million which benefits the Ti- Cats and developer(s) but not the local taxpayer.

Therefore the issue of sustainability is only realistically addressed at Ivor Wynne and the business challenge of the Ti-Cats is to fill the nearly 30 thousand seats available to them at a publicly subsidized Ivor Wynne. The issue of a new stadium is not the answer to the Ti- Cats sustainability. The issue of sustainability is addressed in providing a product on the field that creates a demand for tickets and the necessary revenue to become and remain sustainable. Therefore a renovated Ivor Wynne and a sold out stadium for all Ti- Cat home games is the answer and the most prudent initiative for all to pursue which is not what some people want but I believe that is what they need.

I believe we need to focus on priorities that matter e.g. Manufacturing Jobs, 2 billion dollar infrastructure deficit , 146 million dollar provincial downloading crisis and 20 percent poverty rate. My position has always been the same and that is the fact the Pan Am games and stadium is the mother of all unfocused priorities. I've attached the proceeding comments for your perusal surrounding this fiasco I had written during the summer months:

Bottom line is a vote for West Harbour is a vote for Ivor Wynne due to the criterion that money will only be allocated to a site with a long term tenant. Keep in mind West Harbour has a capital deficit of approximate 50 million dollars and millions more in operating thereby creating an environment of an ultimatum from the Province and the Feds due to the preceding criterion.

A vote for the urban sprawl option on the East Mountain is a vote for a stadium that is underfunded by approximately 120 million dollars deeming it unaffordable to the taxpayer but with a tenant.

Therefore the only viable option left is the renovation of Ivor Wynne which can accommodate soccer and a sustainable tenant that has played at Ivor Wynne since 1930. Anything but Ivor Wynn is a pie in the ski option and a travesty to the hard working people of the City of Hamilton. This unmitigated disaster could have been prevented had my request for due diligence been pursued back in February of 2009. Although I didn't support such a unmitigated ill prepared initiative at least we would have known then what we've confirmed now that this unfocused priority will victimize the taxpayers of this city.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 15:44:18

I got the same response however it's only now that the Cats have nixed the WH that a vote for WH is a vote for Ivor Wynne... I could vote for a stadium built on a brownfield provided it was fiscally responsible however putting one anywhere else is IMO asking for problems. Lawrence has some great ideas for Ivor Wynne.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 16:45:21

TreyS,

"A stadium creates jobs.... construction, hotel, stadium jobs, any other spinoff business."

I don't see any hotels or spinoff businesses around IWS.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By cd (anonymous) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 19:47:58

Bravo, Dave MacDonald!

Voice of reason.

And thanks for the statistics.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted October 18, 2010 at 21:52:13

The way to help people with poverty is to provide good paying jobs. That ends that argument. Whatever means to that end it takes, that is still the end solution to poverty.

IVW is only used for CFL, ten times a year. It is surrounded by residential zoning. Where exactly would a hotel be built around IVW?

A new stadium is not a fair comparison to 90 year-old IVW surrounded by residential zoning. A new stadium will house 2 professional sports franchises, host concerts and regional, provincial and national athletics.

Plus intelligent zoning around a new stadium would provide the opportunity for spin-offs... hotels, f&b and the like. A new stadium owned by the city is not proposing to be just home to a CFL Team, no matter where it is located. Hamilton plans big for the stadium, that is, for multi-use throughout the year -- the bigger and better the stadium the bigger and the better the uses -- regardless of where it is.

The argument of what location will provide the most usages, ergo, be the most profitable for the City is what is at issue. For starters, having a CFL franchise as a tenant is a good place to start. Now find other tenants, conventions, concerts, other athletic users. Don't judge a location on where it will look pretty or what brownfield it will clean, but where would this City-owned venue will make the most money? The answer is by asking potential tenants where they think money is to made. The City is a business, and I don't think you want the City to be in money losing ventures anymore than I do.

For once, stop the prejudice against people that have made their own money!!!!. ie Foxcroft, Brailey, Joyce, and Young (and others I'm sorry to not name all for the sake of keeping this comment as brief as possible). I don't hear you all dissing; Juravinski, Lee Chin or DeGroote. I'm sorry you're not a millionaire, but losing the bitterness might help you.* These are Hamiltonians that give a crap about our City.

Look, I'm only repeating what was said by our Mayor that a WH stadium 'would spur development and spin-offs, not only at WH but also downtown' . So if IVW failed to create a hotel or entertainment strip, it's because of poor planning and zoning. If our Mayor is correct, then a stadium should be a profit making investment regardless of its location. The argument then becomes, what area directly benefits the most? Longwood sucks almost as much as WH because of the limited access and surrounding land use. Almost all residential and difficult to access for regional fans.

If you want to take IVW as an example of zero area investment, than why would WH be any different? But the mayor told us WH Stadium would help the immediate area AS WELL AS downtown (as much as a stretch that is) that is what our mayor said. Don't hate me for repeating what our mayor said.

Either a stadium does that or doesn't? You can't say one location will do this and another location won't. It just depends on where? It does or it doesn't. Carmen's was ready to put a shovel in the ground for a hotel for a WM location. At least at Confederation Park we by-pass land speculators and if the land value goes up Hamilton benefits when/if we sell it. I think, that development anywhere within the existing Hamilton borders is good for Hamilton. I'm for supporting the urbanization of ALL parts of the City. The areas that are serviced now, so why not densify them? Heck, even Harlem (on Manhattan Island) was at one time considered suburban.

Understand, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm glad you have your own opinion and care to express it. I'm happy to be challenged in my thoughts, it makes me give more thought to what I think. That's the point of RTH. It's not to bully-out other opinions and comments.

I only wish to express mine. And desire the same respect as you do. Not to be called names but to at least be heard. The same way I hear and absorb all the positions on an argument before I determine my own position.

It's your choice, it's your perception, it's your opinion, that's democracy... in the end, we get what we deserve.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted October 19, 2010 at 03:02:35

Quoting Slodrive:"However, I find that we have an incredible image problem that leads greatly to erosion of our city core. Simply put, people still see this is a blighted, smog covered, grungy steeltown."
****************************
Well, some of our politicians seem to feel that way. The only thing they want to develop are cornfields, 15 miles away from the City core! This promotes "Donut City", not Steel City. (everything on the outside & a big hole in the middle.)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Vod K (anonymous) | Posted October 19, 2010 at 07:27:21

I hate the future fund. Idon't care what we spend it on but spend it.

Governments are in the business of redistibuting capital not holding it.

If the government has money they should

-spend it
-lower my taxes
-reduce debt
-give it back to me

It is no different then when we had surplus budgets federally. suddenly everybody was happy we were overtaxed?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted October 19, 2010 at 08:31:15

Hey Trey, no one's deriding you for speaking your opinion except to present their own opinion as to why your opinion is incorrect. Relax a bit...the shadow character that called you names isn't even worth the effort. Someone who hides behind an anonymous name to attack an individual isn't worthy of response.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted October 19, 2010 at 08:33:35

Also IMO repairing sewers and such would fall under enhancing community life. As would something like building a stadium provided it would be done correctly and in a way that best benefits the city.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted October 19, 2010 at 08:42:08

Trey,

You have spoken about spin off jobs and I agree that they are highly desirable. Why not put a stadium downtown where we have a ton of vacant office space! Restaurants downtown will see huge bump on game and event nights as well.

I personally have nothing against successful people, in fact I think I might be on my way to being one some day in the distant future. My problem is with using public money to primarily benefit an already wealthy individual. Bob's plan is to build the stadium in a location where he can channel as many revenue streams into his own pocket as possible. Once again, I have no problem with this if he was paying for the stadium himself. But he isn't.

Since, however, it's our dime that's funding the stadium, the dimes that it produces should be coming back into our pockets.

So, if you're getting downvoted for suggesting a site other than WH, it's not out of spite, it's because, as a whole, the RTH community supports the WH location for it's potential benefits that the other sites can't match.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted October 19, 2010 at 10:12:24

Albeit brandon the view that most like yourself have of the WH as the only site that makes sense for a stadium, with or without TigerCats money I presume, is a very narrow and reductionistic view of how only this site can help Hamilton's downtown core if Hamilton is putting so much money towards it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Chris Angel (registered) | Posted October 21, 2010 at 12:46:45

I like the candidates who support a so called "loan" to build the stadium. With the CFL and in particular the Ti-Cats crying poverty 9 out of 10 years how long will it take for the loan to turn into a grant? Some form of relief in the future is almost certain.

So sorry to see an articulate intelligent person like TreyS being verbally assaulted by people of very limited intellect. I see this as a progression from guard dogging one ideology to the exclusion of all others to true intolerence. Yeah huh huh (drool) if sum wun sayz sumthin i don like i call um a moron huh huh.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Enterprise (registered) | Posted October 23, 2010 at 10:57:39

TreyS wrote: For once, stop the prejudice against people that have made their own money!!!!. ie Foxcroft, Brailey, Joyce, and Young (and others I'm sorry to not name all for the sake of keeping this comment as brief as possible). I don't hear you all dissing; Juravinski, Lee Chin or DeGroote. I'm sorry you're not a millionaire, but losing the bitterness might help you. These are Hamiltonians that give a crap about our City.*

Well, TreyS, yes and no: I am a fan of anyone who starts up and is able to run a successful business & I was a fan of many of the people you list here until I heard one of them on CHML. I was so disappointed to hear him speak, to hear the disparaging remarks he made, his condescending attitude.

The whole stadium issue feels like a manipulation by a few people with power to hijack taxpayers money to further their own interests under the guise of being 'what's best for the city.'

I'm trying to educate myself on this whole issue (I look forward to the McMaster University free lecture on the 28th about funding of stadiums) and am trying to find out who exactly is behind what (RTH site has been a wonderful source of information).

We have a bit more time to review the whole mess and hopefully reason will prevail.

Comment edited by Enterprise on 2010-10-23 10:00:48

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds