Municipal Election 2010

What to Expect from the Mayor-Elect

Bob Bratina's voting record in ward 2 shows a progressive councillor who chooses consistently in support of the downtown core and urban revitalization.

By Ryan McGreal
Published October 28, 2010

Thanks to the intrepid folks folks Citizens at City Hall, we have a record of how council voted on a number of contentious issues over the last term.

Looking at how mayor-elect Bob Bratina voted while councillor for Ward 2 may afford some insights into what we can expect from him over the next four years.

We know Bratina was one of only two councillors (with Ward 1 councillor Brian McHattie) to vote against the Airport Employment Growth District (AEGD) plan in mid-October.

At the same time, Bratina prepared and moved a motion to suspend zoning enforcement for culture industries while staff prepare a Comunity Improvement Plan for arts in the lower city.

When we broaden our perspective to the past four years, we still see a progressive councillor who votes consistently in support of the downtown core and urban revitalization.

Council Votes

In January, 2007, Bratina voted with most of council to direct staff to prepare a by-law restricting the use of pesticides. In September of the same year, he voted to pass it. (Of course, the by-law itself was fairly toothless and the Ontario Government passed a province-wide cosmetic pesticide ban in April 2009.)

In September 2007, Bratina voted in favour of a motion to phase out area rating for transit. Unfortunately, council was deadlocked and the motion was defeated on a tie. Mayor Eisenberger cast the deciding vote against the motion.

Council voted in February 2008 to buy $3 million in land around Hamilton International Airport on the request of airport manager Tradeport International. The motion was approved 9-7, with support from Mayor Eisenberger, but Bratina was among the 7 opposed.

In March 2008, Council voted to keep up its (at that time) six-year lawsuit against the Federal Government for trying to impose an Environmental Assessment on the Red Hill Valley Parkway. Bratina and Eisenberger were among the six councillors who voted to drop the suit.

Also that March, Council passed a motion instructing staff to look at restricting smoking in parks and asking the Province to ban smoking in personal vehicles with children. Bratina and Eisenberger both voted to support the motion.

In June 2008, Council voted for the motion to buy a restored Lister Building from LIUNA (which the union accepted). Bratina was one of six councillors who voted against it.

In October 2008, Council voted to remove the marble and stainless steel cladding on City Hall and replace it with concrete and aluminum. Bratina was among just four members of council (with Mayor Eisenberger) to vote against doing this.

Also in October, Council voted to set minimum property standards for heritage buildings "for the maintenance of heritage attributes of designated" properties. The motion passed narrowly 8-7, with Bratina and Eisenberger in support.

In July 2009, Council voted to rezone an industrial employment land at QEW and Fifty Road to build a big box development anchored by a Wal-Mart. Bratina voted against it, while Eisenberger supported it along with the majority.

In August 2009, Council voted to ask the Ontario government for the power to ban corporate and union donations. Bratina and Eisenberger were both among the nine councillors who voted in favour.

In September 2009, Council went in camera and voted to submit the Connaught building for an affordable housing proposal. Bratina raised extenuating issues related to the Connaught proposal and abstained from voting. Later, he moved a motion to defer a decision pending more information from staff.

Aside: Council approved the Connaught decision because they heard legal advice that the City's affordable housing proposals would be in jeopardy if they didn't submit all six recommendations at once. The Bay Observer's Peggy Chapman later reported that the city could have submitted the projects separately after all. The Province ultimately rejected all six projects.

In November 2009, Council narrowly approved a staff-recommended 15 cent transit fare hike for 2010. Eisenberger voted to approve the fare hike, and Bratina voted against it.

Also that November, Council voted to defer making a decision on area rating and instead appoint a citizens' jury to study the issue and make a recommendation to the new council.

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.

79 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 10:28:47

While this is a helpful illustration of the mindset of the mayor-elect, Bratina hasn't picked up any additional voting clout along the way. Any one voice in chambers must sway eight others in order to move in the desired direction, voters only altered two of those voices, and the candidate's own campaign tapped decade-old amalgamation resentment to drive a wedge into the political landscape. One hopes that he's able to transform into a municipal mensch, but his progressive aspirations will still have to meet with council's approval. It's entirely likely that, like his predecessor, he ends up standing firm on principles while council flows around him.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 10:31:26

Correction – three voices. We're getting closer!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By John Neary (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 10:44:42

Ryan,

Great post. I think with all of the recent fuss over the stadium (and Mayor-Elect Bratina's rather strange idea of building north-south LRT before east-west), a lot of people have forgotten about his voting record, which is very impressive -- likely more impressive than Eisenberger's. It's hard to argue that the location of the stadium is more important than the decision on the aerotropolis.

Councillor Bratina also had a strong record on local issues in his constituency. He has been a strong supporter of the Beasley Neighbourhood Association on issues such as the rehabilitation and expansion of Beasley Park, the construction of the new community centre in Dr. Davey School, and the two-way conversion of Wilson Street. He also argued for improvements to the Truck Route Master Plan in order to reduce the damage caused to our neighbourhoods by truck traffic, although he did vote for the plan in the end. Finally, he advocated for the Downtown Mosque when their effort to purchase and redevelop a vacant property was threatened by the police force's desire to acquire the same land for a storage facility. In this effort, he was unfortunately unsuccessful.

I hope that Councillor-Elect Farr will be a similarly strong advocate for Ward 2.

John

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 10:50:46

He voted against funding for the Creative Catalyst saying that we 'don't need another arts organization'.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 11:19:31

While it is good to look at Mr. Bratina's past, (Thank-you Ryan), I see a potential problem with his future. As shown in the Spectator's votes by ward breakdown Bob Bratina is now beholden to suburban interests. They likely elected him because he raised the spectre of de-amalgamation. They don't care about his pro-downtown stance because as they see it if they can push the de-amalgamation agenda then downtown Hamilton is no longer their problem and Bob Bratina can go right on being a "progressive Mayor who supports downtown".

He will be held to task by the suburban/rural voters that elected him and if he wants to hold on to the Mayor's job (and once in power no one wants to lose it) he will have to pander to them. If people thought a debate about where to put a stadium sucked up council's time and effort just wait for the great de-amalgamation debate.

Mr. Bratina may have some silver lining but to me his cons still outweigh the pros… especially when considering how and why he got elected.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Shempatolla (registered) - website | Posted October 28, 2010 at 11:26:00

What will be telling is how far Bob is willing to go to extend olive branches to some of those on council he has royally pissed off.

I think that he was very foxy in bringing up the deamalgamation issue. Its a non starter and the province is NOT going to go there. I was out in Flamborough the other day and there were tons of Bratina signs. He clearly played to that constituency and it worked.

He has seemed intent (at least on the radio the last couple of days) in dragging Confederation Park back into the stadium debate.

His north south first LRT position disturbs me a bit, and seems to run counter to his opposition to AEGD.

I want to hear his views and see what action he takes on getting the city "out of the way" of the private sector with respect to downtown revitalization and assisting entrepreneurs and small business in being successful.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 11:37:29

It'll be interesting to see if his new office softens his bare-knuckle opinions about McMaster and MIP – "an unwieldy leviathan ruining everything around it," whose "Innovation Park is not living up to its promise."

http://goo.gl/X1vg
http://goo.gl/tJPV

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ness (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 11:48:09

One word - Vranich.

And you thought our leaders were beholden to private interests before.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 11:50:26

He has seemed intent (at least on the radio the last couple of days) in dragging Confederation Park back into the stadium debate. - Shempatolla

WOO-HOO... worst stadium location ever!!!

His north south first LRT position disturbs me a bit, and seems to run counter to his opposition to AEGD.

That is a head scratcher isn't it. I guess what he's saying is he prefers an LRT to nowhere???

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 11:52:12

Bob usually sort of "thinks out loud" and says whatever's on his mind at any given time, I'd ignore most of it and look at what he ends up voting for.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 12:20:24

Bob usually sort of "thinks out loud" and says whatever's on his mind at any given time, I'd ignore most of it and look at what he ends up voting for. - nobrainer

True enough... it is still fun to point out the folly of many of his comments though : )

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted October 28, 2010 at 12:25:32

@Kiely

Bob seems big on considering the options, even the bad ones. He wants to open Confed. park for study. In general, he seems willing to listen to reason, he just needs to hear properly-quantified explanations for why bad ideas are bad.

Imho, it's looking more and more like McHattie is right - all this kerfuffle and we'll end up renovating Ivor Wynne. Mind you, that's not a bad thing as long as they don't plan to do it on the cheap - if they dump half the money into IW that they had planned for this new stadium, they can do some spectacular things there.

That said, with Farr in and Eisenberger out, and hot-headed Bob unable to control council, the councillors might have a new respect for the city's support for the Cats and push for Confed. park or Steelcare Plant 6.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2010-10-28 11:27:08

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 12:30:52

You have one thing correct Pxtl. Bob Bratina seems to be open minded on many if not most subjects and is not so focused on his particular agenda he actually considers all arguments before making up his mind on issues. IMO this is a good thing. Some see it as waffling I see it as being careful to be open to changing a position when it has been demonstrated to be unworkable.

Comment edited by turbo on 2010-10-28 11:56:45

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 13:18:55

when it has been demonstrated to be unworkable.

Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to the stadium debate.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 13:22:40

Bob seems big on considering the options, even the bad ones. He wants to open Confed. park for study. In general, he seems willing to listen to reason, he just needs to hear properly-quantified explanations for why bad ideas are bad. - Pxtl

Sure, that is one way of looking at it.

Others may say he is simply a flaccid flag waiting to see which way the wind is blowing and his "thinking out loud" is nothing more than blades of grass being thrown to the wind to test the strength and direction it is blowing.

Comment edited by Kiely on 2010-10-28 12:29:58

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hopeful4future (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 13:30:20

@highwater. I think Bob supports the arts where the owners/operators are financially invested. I don't think anyone should fault him for that position.

Bob motioned on The Pearl Company, and I believe (not 100%) he also suggested (or motioned, I don't know which) for the creative catalyst money to be put towards an existing facility like the Tivoli Theatre.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 13:34:07

it's looking more and more like McHattie is right

/s/McHattie/Merulla/

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted October 28, 2010 at 13:37:51

I really liked his work for years, and in many ways he's still doing it. However, now that he's mayor, he's gonna need to answer some hard questions. What's up with Vrancor? Seriously. I still haven't seen anything even resembling a response. And given the outpouring of info, rebuttles etc regarding DiIanni's shady connections, that leaves me very uneasy.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted October 28, 2010 at 15:09:58

Of course I agree with you Pxtl on the stadium thing. I just don't like the mentality that 'Ivor Wynne has always been the fallback' as expressed to me after I delegated, by Sam. It can never be a 'fall-back'. It would have to be a plan with not only safety and the $20M price tag that immediately invokes, but modern day amnenities. The fact that we have only spent somewhere in the ballpark of $9M on Ivor Wynne since the 70's aside from the yearly mainenance costs, is sickening. If you are going to forge ahead as a location as your stadium, you have to do something with it. Not just keep it safe. Chairs with seatbacks would certainly go a long way. A 5 year plan to slowly replace those benches long ago would have brought the renew vs. build new decision gap a little closer.

Bob Young started this renew process when he came to town, including the new scoreboard, but IWS is a city asset. Look at what we did with AGH? It looks pretty sharp. All those times council voted againgst a new stadium before or lost bids to host games such as the Commonwealth, plans should have been put into place then. When Boston finally started to modernize their historic Fenway Park, people flocked to it and still do. Me included. I would drive 8 hours any day to spend some quality time within those walls.

I know this article isn't about stadiums, but it is still something I feel deserves a lot more public input, instead of all these experts in the new stadium game. Bring in someone who is open to discuss both options - renew and build new. Do the experts who undertand the economics of the Wrigley Fields and Fenway Parks, see any benefit to a similar Canadian project. What worth would such a venue bring to not only Hamilton, but Canada? Ivor Wynne is already cherished across the country. What would doing something spectacular as pxtl stated, bring to our community? What kind of draw would it attract for football and history fans alike? Would it draw folks from across North America? Are there studies to support or negate such facts?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 15:34:25

I agree with Cofederation Park being the WORST possible location for a new stadium. Being open minded is good, but you'd have to be an idiot to think that Confederation Park would be a good place to put a stadium. I want to know why he is being so vocal about this and so soon. What's his motivation? I'm worried.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 15:37:19

The majority of Hamiltonians are idiots apparently. Every poll conducted has CFP being the number one choice if its on the table

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted October 28, 2010 at 15:51:35

I don't think CFP can ever be on the table again under the Pan Am proposal because of time. When asked at the last COW by council I believe it was, Chris Murray stated that their focus is on the CP Rail Yard with no time to put other sites back on the table.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted October 28, 2010 at 15:57:38

I disagree that Confed. park is the worst. It's the largest park in the city and therefore has the most room for development while still maintaining some parklands, and thus fulfills all of Bob's needs.

The problem is that it's the second-most disconnected site that's been floated (after EM). It's not close to anything but the highway and Wild Waterworks. This will be a driveway-to-driveway experience, and there will be no Hamilton home-grown sports-bars and entertainment district surrounding it. Just a stadium and a gift to developers.

However it is within the lower city and can be far better hooked into the transit system than the east-mountain location.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 16:05:08

The majority of Hamiltonians are idiots apparently. Every poll conducted has CFP being the number one choice if its on the table - turbo

Different opinions or desires does not make someone an idiot. I may not want a stadium at Confed park, it is in fact the last location I would pick. But that doesn't mean if you want it there I think you're an idiot, we just obviously have very different opinions on the matter.

Besides I think spending the kind of money we plan to on something we don't need in the economic situation we are in is the real idiocy ; )

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 16:09:06

The problem with that argument Px is that with the smart centre going in across the QEW your statement about it being the most disconnected simply isn't true. I personally don't think there is time to get the work done required to even consider the site but it a crying shame that we'll never know what it might have cost and whether there was private money there that isn't available in the 3 sites that have been explored. The result of Chad Collins dishonest defense of greenspace argument in favour of another type of development taking up the same space is really sad

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 16:16:05

I think Bob supports the arts where the owners/operators are financially invested. I don't think anyone should fault him for that position.

I never said he didn't support the arts, just that he doesn't support the Creative Catalyst. If he thinks you can simply substitute an arts venue like the Tivoli for the CC, he clearly doesn't understand creative industries and the potential they have to revitalize our economy. That was bad enough when he was the downtown councillor, but now that he's the mayor, I find it deeply disconcerting.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 17:15:13

I still think you'd have to be an idiot to think that CF is the best place to put a stadium for the following reasons.

It is no where near the proposed LRT

It is not well serviced by other public transit

There is nothing around it for fans to spend their money on (except Hutch's)

Very few houses are within walking distance

It does nothing to revitalize any part of the city (not even CF park)

It's a horrible use of lakefront property (that's a matter of opinion, I know)

Although it is close to the highway, there is only one road (ONE lane road) that services the park. Even if made into two lanes, there is still only one road and everyone would be getting on the exact same road after the game. There is a traffic light in close proximity to the location in either direction. ie, it's not like being in a rural location with nothing around for miles where cars can drive long distances before having to stop at a light. It's not like other cities/locations which are surrounded by many many streets. It would take hours and hours to get anywhere after a game.

So, for the above reasons, I feel that it is a horrible location

It seems the masses do not understand the value of having a park on waterfront. We are extremely lucky/blessed to have such a large park on the waterfront. We should be exploiting the park land AS parkland and turn it into a wonderful park that would make other cities green with envy.

Chicago did it right. Stadium in the harbour in the downtown area. The rest of the waterfront is beautiful park land. We are EXTREMELY lucky to be in a position to do the same thing. I really wish more people would see that. Let's not mess it up forever.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 19:03:13

I agree that Conf Park is horrible for a stadium. It might as well be in the middle of nowhere. Heck, at least we have plans to run BRT or LRT out to the airport area someday. Conf Park is so isolated and removed from the city.

Back in 1970 it would be considered a good stadium location....in case anyone has forgotten, we used to call all those places the "mistake by the lake".

CP Railyard I can live with due to it's proximity to LRT, Locke South, Westdale, other transit, cycling/pedestrian access and still close to downtown.

But I have zero faith with Osmington as the partner. Might as well have Primus and DeLuca roofing be the major partners.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 19:16:15

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 SoWhat (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 19:54:09

Undustrial, can you elaborate on DiIanni's 'shady' connections? thanks.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robbie K (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 20:21:26

My biggest problem with CP is that the drive in HORRIBLE to look at. Hamilton has a bad rep almost 100% because of the TERRIBLE view of the steel plant. If you are looking for "economic spinoff" expect that this location is going to send a lot of people running for the hills. Particularly when you think ANOTHER big box development is going to keep them around after. Don't get me wrong, I actually don't mind those locations one bit, but if you are from Burlington why stay and have a few at BostonPizza there when you can stop at the one in Burlington which in a nicer neighbourhood and closer to home.

One of the great things about the ACC and Skydome is that there are lots of one off bars close by. Downtown you have that (think Hess, Honest Lawyer, London Taphouse)..

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By osmington (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 20:47:19

What's wrong with Osmington as a partner? They are a multi-billion dollar Canadian real estate management and development company who has already invested in Hamilton (Centre Mall among other projects) and has a track record that includes building a successful multi-purpose arena/retail/office complex in downtown Winnipeg.

Who were you hoping for?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 20:50:26

One of the great things about the ACC and Skydome is that there are lots of one off bars close by. Downtown you have that (think Hess, Honest Lawyer, London Taphouse)..

that's one of the great things about almost every stadium that has been built in the past decade. Hamilton might be one of the only cities actually looking to go as far out of the city as possible with it's stadium. Look at how much fighting the city had to do to get CP Rail on the table instead of Mountain farmland or the airport.
I think council should take their 5-7,000 seat stadium at WH and build it with foundations in place to expand to 25,000 in the future once we get an owner like every other sports owner in N.America.

That's how Ivor Wynne was built. Then when the Cats came over from HAAA 30 years later, they expanded it. Let's do it again.

I wonder what the Cats are thinking now? They go through all this in part, to turf Fred and instead of getting their man, they end up with a guy who doesn't want to spend a dime on sprawl/greenfield projects and called their EM plan "crap". LOL
Looks good on them.

Comment edited by jason on 2010-10-28 19:51:02

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 21:11:57

One thing I think everyone agrees on is that a 5-7000 seat stadium is useless and HOSTCO won't fund it. I am sure the Cats are far more comfortable with Bratina than Eisenberger

Comment edited by turbo on 2010-10-28 20:12:52

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 21:33:25

Really? He is talking about being fiscally responsible and NOT wasting taxpayers money. I don't know that the Ticats should be all that comfortable. IMO Bob would be far more likely to walk away from the Pan Am Games & stadium $$$ than Fred would have been.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 21:40:55

Eisenberger already walked away from the stadium in their view. His is a one site agenda that will never happen. At least with Bratina they have a chance to talk, something that Eisenberger steadfastly refused to do. Did you notice that no progress was made until they got the mayor out of the picture? I'm feeling like Longwood might go and that would never happen under Eisenbergers watch. At least council will get a full and honest report without the fear that Bratina will withhold information from the province or HOSTCO

Comment edited by turbo on 2010-10-28 20:43:52

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 21:50:02

Bratina was specifically mentioning projects that he thought were a waste of money; City Hall, the Lister Block. Yes, Bob has been more concilatory (than Fred) in regards to the Ticats by stating he is willing to open up Confederation Park (from which I understand Hostco has alluded that it's too late in the game to start looking at alternative sites).
http://www.thespec.com/news/elections/ar... At this point the City is compiling data on the financial feasability of Longwood and Aberdeen. If that location turns out to be too expensive he will have no choice but to walk. The City owns the WH lands and money has to be kept aside to develop that area.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 21:57:10

Bratina had the walnuts to walk out of a flood relief meeting that would have been like writing a massive blank cheque. Presumably he'll have the walnuts to torpedo a fundamentally skewed stadium deal that would be like writing an even more massive blank cheque.

http://goo.gl/JvbA
http://goo.gl/ve17

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 22:40:22

I love how it's easy to revise history the further removed we get.

A few facts being 'lost' in the discussion off the top of my head:

  • Cats were on board with WH, hugging and shaking hands at city council in Feb
  • Young: we'll make any site work
  • city evaluated several sites before finalizing WH as the best option
  • Conf Park removed upon learning that 100 acres of it's 230 acres would be paved over with big box complex as the ONLY means of it being a viable site for the Cats.
  • Cats hire Eric Cunningham
  • DiIanni hires Eric Cunningham
  • Cats propose EM
  • Cats walk away from EM
  • Almost all of council ratifies WH in the midst of BY's tantrum
  • Developers start lining up for WH
  • Katz/AEG love WH
  • Bratina calls EM big box plan "crap" (presumably he thinks the identical plan at Conf Park is also "crap")
  • no private money for ANY alternative site
  • no developers lining up for any alternative site.

Anyone else care to add anything? ....some of our commenters seems to need a quick refresher.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By adam2 (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 22:44:04

How is a new stadium going to attract businesses and grow the downtown/waterfront? We already have a stadium downtown and it hasn't done anything to stimulate growth or add new businesses. Will a new building for the same team somehow magically change the equation?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 22:49:52

We have an arena downtown - not a stadium. It's not about one facility, it's about creating critcal mass. There are a lot of factors that have contributed to the decline of the downtown, so using Copps as an example soley on it's own merit is not really fair. After Copps was built, we lost to many other valuable pieces of the puzzle over the past 20+ years (Eaton's, the closing of the Connaught, the closing of the 'indepdendent' movie theatres, Robinsons being turned into a parking lot, Zellers being turned into a parking lot) and there has been nothing positive to replace such institutions. Something has to be the catalyst.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Henry and Joe (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 22:52:05

I like Bratina's comment during the debate that the area of the CP lands should be high end residential. When the Red Brick building at MIP opened (before CanMet was started), the view south towards the escarpment was breathtaking. The abandoned factories on the east side looked beautiful because change was in the air. Seeing a stadium against the escarpment just doesn't seem right to me.

I especially like the idea that it be an annex for the MIP one day in the future. I may be guilty of throwing my NIMBY frisbee around here, but it is 2 km from my house, so it wouldn't cause me much direct impact. It just seems like a waste to put it there when there are downtown locations that can work out so much better.

I like Robbie K's Bostonpizzanomic theory above. That is definitely how alot of people think for some reason - where can I find a box of a sports bar with shiny bar stools and bubbly waitresses? If I'm already driving, why not go to the one in my own neigbourhood? I would just add to Robbie's list that with a downtown stadium, one can also patronize James N., Augusta/Corktown Area, Locke St., and even Westdale is a short bike ride along the Harbourfront.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 09:06:23

Jason

Your fact sheet starts with a lie. Cats were never on board with Rheem. Why you think perpetuating this lie will make it true I don't know. The Cats were on board with any site in the city of Hamilton that made financial sense to both the city and the Tigercats. You always want to leave out the 2nd half of the quote. Also the Tigercats didn't walk away from East Mountain, they found out they were going to lose the vote and walked away from the process altogether. East Mountain approval would have seen them stay. Katz has offered nothing and only want Copps to secure a site to play off to get a better deal from Edmonton and AEG only wants Copps for concerts and has no real interest in a stadium but is playing to the city in order to gain control of HECFI at which point they'll say they'll tell the truth and bail on stadium plans. Dishonest debate is why we are in the position we are in now. Thanks for that Fred

Comment edited by turbo on 2010-10-29 08:11:14

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 09:13:42

At least council will get a full and honest report without the fear that Bratina will withhold information from the province or HOSTCO

Yeah. We can place all our trust in Bob. He's such a pillar of stability.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 09:18:23

IMO Bob would be far more likely to walk away from the Pan Am Games & stadium $$$ than Fred would have been.

He's still only one vote, and not only did we just re-elect all the councillors who rolled for Bob Young, but we just added Jason Farr who works for him.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robbie K (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 09:20:22

"quote. Also the Tigercats didn't walk away from East Mountain, they found out they were going to lose the vote and walked away from the process altogether"

Hun? Say that again?

"Who said I don't like pizza. Yeah, so anyways, I was trying to eat pizza, which I hate"....

They did not even keep the offer of the table long enough to vote. They had absolutly no choice but to vote WH at that point. Would it have made a difference? Who knows? I listened to the entire debate vote day and it certainly sounded like if SOMEONE was there that they would be all ears.

You can't consider an offer that already exists.

Quiting on something because you think you are going to loose is called being a Bitch. Plain and simple. Man up, put on your game face, get your ass to the debate, present your case one last time. If it still falls though, fair enough, be pissed. But don't blame anyone but your bitch ass self for pulling the plug....

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robbie K (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 09:21:34

Sorry, that should read "You can't consider an offer that no longer exists"..

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 09:35:12

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.

Comment edited by turbo on 2010-10-29 08:36:52

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robbie K (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 10:59:46

Turbo, you really REALLY REEEEEEAAAALLLLLY need to learn how to read. I am sure you will say the Spec is making this up of course :

http://www.thespec.com/sports/ticats/article/248038--young-pulls-out-of-pan-am-negotiations

"A Ticat source confirms that they are pulling their money off the table for the East Mountain stadium as well. There's concern that the relationship with the city has become so sullied that even if the East Mountain was selected, that negotiating all the other elements: lease, naming rights etc etc would be next to impossible."

So, there you go. The Thursday (or Friday I can't remember) before the vote, BY pulled their money off the table and choose not to show up at the meeting where the city wanted to talk about numbers regarding funding or the parking among many other items.

Regardless of your stadium viewpoint, the fact he pulled his funding before the vote is absolutly 100% not debateable, however I am sure you will try..

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 11:11:30

@ Highwater - Fair enough, one vote is one vote whether or not you are Mayor or Councilor. By my comment, I was just hypothesizing that Bob would be more like to table the motion to walk from the Games than Fred. As Mayor, Fred wanted the Pan Am games as a feather in his cap.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By PseudonymousCoward (registered) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 11:13:27

Turbo has demonstrated abundantly, consistently, and above all persistently that he is a troll seeking only to disrupt this forum. Don't waste your time trying to prove to him that he is a troll, he already knows what he is doing and abject denial is part of his game. Please refrain from further encouragement of his behaviour and stop responding to his comments.

Comment edited by PseudonymousCoward on 2010-10-29 10:16:18

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robbie K (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 12:26:18

Meh, I woulden't say hes is a troll per say. I have seen some posts from him that (while I may not agree totally) have some good points and are generally well put together. Nothing wrong with that. Howver there seems to be (on all sides of the debate) an misconception about what is fact and what is opinion .

It is 100% fact that TiCats pulled the funding therefore basically making it a vote of WH or nothing.

If you think that was the best choice for Y, if you think they were voting WH anyway, all that is opinion.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 13:24:08

Despite the fact that I have seconded the motion that Turbo is a Douche on a different thread here, "You really are a douche!"....

I have found when Turbo has taken his meds he makes some very valid points however contrariwise to RTH they may be. I'm not so sure many appreciate all of my viewpoints on this forum either but it's usually been pleasant, passionate and eye-opening debate. It's unfortunate that Turbo's messages get lost in the hostility of his writing style and his love of bare naked confrontation.

Turbo, dude, stop hating so much and ignore the downvotes. Also, just because you seem to find other commentators 'preachy' here I'd like to respectfully recommend that you avoid that writing style for yourself. 'Preachy' can easily drift into 'Snarky', intentionally or not. Your viewpoints are different than most here so expect and embrace any challenges or even outright attacks. Defend and counter with facts and feelings, but not raw emotion. Your actual points and arguments have become lost, that's a shame for you and the site.

Edit: grammar mistakes

Comment edited by mrjanitor on 2010-10-29 12:30:19

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Gee (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 14:46:32

.....A question from someone who is just getting familiar with the Pam-Am issues - What are the plans for Ivor Wynne once a new statium is built?

Also, why would a site far out of the city core be considered at all (aside from having the space)? The WH location is closer to the core of Hamilton, no?

This is the question that has confused me about the entire fiasco. I don't understand why it became a contender at all. Having one within the core, or very near it, would help the establishments in the area - bringing in much needed revenue. Why even consider out of the way locations? That's a lot how Mississauga was built, and it still lacks a proper downtown, with the Hershey Centre in one place, a major (THE major) mall in another, the City Hall by the mall, and another major venue all the way near the Airport, etc. I dislike Mississauga and it's perpetual suburban bedroom community feel, and I work where, if there was a proper downtown, this would be it. They even tried to declare it by naming the street "City Centre Dr". It didn't work.....

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 14:46:45

More interesting news that ties into Mayor Bob's AEGD platform:

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 15:03:46

Yeah, he's just reasonable enough to rope you back into the debate, only to revert back to being a douche again. No, turbo's a troll alright.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 16:31:40

...A question from someone who is just getting familiar with the Pam-Am issues - What are the plans for Ivor Wynne once a new statium is built? - Gee

Bernie Morelli has proposed a community centre... but nothing is confirmed.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 16:39:13

My understanding is that Ivor Wynn would be demolished and sold. The sale of Ivor Wynne and corresponding development fees would be used to offset some of the cost of the new stadium. I also understood the new Senior's Community Centre was for the Scott Park land, not Ivor Wynne.

I may have just dreamed all this up though, as I can't remember specifics. I will try and dig something up.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tartan Triton (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 19:55:29

It's going to be an entertaining four years.

http://www.thespec.com/news/municipalelection/article/272131--question-and-answer-session-with-mayor-elect-ends-abruptly

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/271792--bratina-s-temper-agenda-worry-council

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted October 30, 2010 at 07:57:59

Dear God, that interview was surreal. Half of me thinks that was awesome and half of me is terrified.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 30, 2010 at 20:16:59

Guys I post in the same manner that I'm treated. Most on this site have no interest in honest debate. I am simply responding in the only fashion they understand. They always act like spoiled children so thats the way I treat them at times. The fact is that they do not seem to understand that by browbeating people they disagree with they will always have trouble convincing the majority. I disagree with most but not all this site stands for but I would hate to see some of the people here give up by the time they are 30. The only way to advance your beliefs is to treat your opposition with respect and dignity. Thats something that is almost always missing from the majority here. You want civil discourse, start acting civilly and above all donèt stoop to deliberately misquoting people to twist things to mean something that was never said

Comment edited by turbo on 2010-10-30 19:20:06

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 30, 2010 at 20:22:22

Zjones you are the troll and douche. There is no need for your vile behaviour. It was totally unsolicited

Comment edited by turbo on 2010-10-30 19:22:36

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 30, 2010 at 20:23:24

Thats how I remember it too Andrea

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 30, 2010 at 20:26:24

Bratina probably told them that he would not answer that line of questioning because he has not met with council and as such he really has nothing to say until he tells them first. I actually like the fact that he wont play their game. He set the rules and they chose to ignore them. Hopefully its a lesson learned for the Spec.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 30, 2010 at 20:30:31

Gee. Mississauga is the most successful city in the region. The people there hate the direction so much they elect Hazel for another 4 years in spite of the fact she has been up against it for conflict of interest charges that wont stick and the fact she is pushing 90. Striving not to be Mississauga is hardly going to sell to the majority of Hamilton taxpayers

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Gee (anonymous) | Posted October 30, 2010 at 21:50:39

The disjointed building of landmarks will not work for Hamilton, just as it worked against Mississauga. What made Mississauga so successful is its proximity to Toronto, among other things. What has worked against it is the sprawling development. There is no core, and council has acknowledged that. Thus the reason why they worked on building up the Square One area as the centre of Mississauga and its colossal development of high-density residential buildings around it. Hamilton would do well to learn from it in that regard.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By adam2 (anonymous) | Posted October 31, 2010 at 12:00:23

Gee, your posts raise valid points. I am surprised that nobody has replied to you except for Turbo. I have been in Hamilton almost 5 years and on thing I've noticed is that many people out in the amalgamated city never come to the downtown. I have heard residents of Stoney Creek and Flamborough on separate occasions say to me they think the solution to the downtown is to bulldoze the entire area. This is not surprising seeing as though their neighbourhood was bulldozed a few short years ago before their subdivision was "installed". What they fail to recognize is the value of any kind of history, the need for a community to have a shared culture, a city centre, a vibrant downtown.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 31, 2010 at 12:08:13

They'll never see it. Thats why they moved out there. You cannot force people to care Thats why putting a stadium downtown is such a bad idea. In their opinion there is no need for downtown and frankly from their perspective they aren't wrong

Comment edited by turbo on 2010-10-31 11:09:26

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By adam2 (anonymous) | Posted October 31, 2010 at 12:08:30

Does anyone at the Spectator check articles for grammar and correct word usage? I was just reading through the articles above about Bob Bratina. I guess when you are the only game in town, you can publish anything you want.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tartan Triton (anonymous) | Posted October 31, 2010 at 13:21:04

@adam2 "Does anyone at the Spectator check articles for grammar and correct word usage?"

http://twitter.com/timunroe
http://twitter.com/smaclellan

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted November 01, 2010 at 06:27:56

In their opinion there is no need for downtown and frankly from their perspective they aren't wrong

"You can't be a suburb of nothing." -- Indianapolis Mayor Bill Hudnut

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 01, 2010 at 07:04:53

Actually you can. Its called a small town. I was raised in one about an hour from here. Besides the employment figures suggest that Hamilton itself is the suburb of the GTA and not the employment centre of the population. I think it may be time to acknowledge the new reality

Comment edited by turbo on 2010-11-01 06:14:26

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted November 01, 2010 at 08:52:26

Small town != suburb.

Hamilton != Toronto suburb.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted November 02, 2010 at 08:24:50

Small town != suburb.

Hamilton != Toronto suburb.

Um... Actually, while a case can be made for the second notion, the first indicates a fundamental lack of comprehension about Life in general, and urban/living realities specifically.

I think some remedial learnin' is called for here: there are all kinds of 'small towns' the world over that are not suburbs of some larger, in-the-vicinity entity. Maybe the key here is to at least get a grasp on the definitions of the terms we're using. 'Baby steps', I suppose.

The sad part of this first declaration of nobrainer is that it typifies just how far off-base some so-called 'common sense conclusions' can be. Which is directly connected to the results of our recent election, yes...?

I'm beginning to think that the discerning mind is becoming more and more a rarity.

Comment edited by mystoneycreek on 2010-11-02 07:26:01

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 02, 2010 at 08:51:04

Wow what an intellectual snob.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted November 02, 2010 at 09:38:54

@turbo

Mississauga's sprawl development is an economic vampire for the entire west side of the golden horseshoe - their sprawl development means they choke up the 401, 407, 403 and QEW (paid with Ontario taxpayer dollars, not Mississauga ones)... cutting us all off from the economic powerhouse of the province, Toronto.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 02, 2010 at 13:26:23

Disagree Pxtl. Mississauga Oakville and Burlington tax dollars are Ontario tax dollars. Toronto tax dollars are tax dollars. Between the 4 they are paying over half of the total taxes in this province, more than enough to pay for the highway system they have. In fact its Northern Ontario's roads and other sparsely populated rural areas that we are subsidizing

Comment edited by turbo on 2010-11-02 12:26:44

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Gee (anonymous) | Posted November 02, 2010 at 15:27:20


It is hardly an argument to say that because Mississauga contributes taxes, it is excusable that it strangles commerce for the western half of the province with it's cancerous infiltration of the provincial highway system.

The truth is that Mississauga's development practices of the past (and I say "of the past" because they have acknowledged it as an error) have been a collosal waste of valuable real estate, and is a testament to the fallibility of the automobile society mentality.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 23:52:15

Mayor-elect Bob Bratina has selected Peggy Chapman as his Chief of Staff. Here is the link to the news item from the Hamilton Spectator website: http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl...

Ms. Chapman’s most recent position was editor and senior reporter at The Bay Observer, a local newspaper and media outlet which happens to have its offices in the Tiger-Cat office building owned by Bob Young at 1 Jarvis Street in Hamilton. Earlier this year, The Bay Observer produced a video pushing the Confederation Park stadium site.

What to expect from Mayor-elect Bratina? That he will accede to the wishes of David Braley, Bob Young and Scott Mitchell and push to build the stadium at Confederation Park.

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