Special Report: Pan Am

No City Benefits in Latest Ticat Proposal

To re-establish Hamilton as a great city, we need jobs that will keep people here, and a vital and successful downtown core to act as the economic, social and cultural centre that defines our city to the outside world.

By Jonathan Dalton
Published November 10, 2010

This morning the Hamilton Tiger-Cats' president Scott Mitchell unveiled their latest plan for a "stadium precinct", thus explaining their intentions for the $10M of land they had offered to buy at the Aberdeen and Longwood stadium site.


According to the advance press release sent to the Hamilton Spectator, this parcel of land adjacent to the stadium would contain a 150-room hotel, a conference centre, restaurants and other businesses. Ticat planning consultant Don May hinted at the possibility of townhouses to "attract young buyers, helping to keep them in the city".

When I heard about this meeting and press release, I wondered if it might contain some hint of the long-awaited and much anticipated private sector component of the estimated $160M stadium cost. Sadly (or gladly, depending on your point of view), no such luck. This proposal is contains no new financing for the stadium itself, and we are still facing a shortage in the tens of millions.

The purpose of the "stadium precinct", whether it's a hotel, a 6,000 car parking lot, or a hot dog stand, is to provide a secondary revenue stream to offset operating losses on the Ticats' core business of sports entertainment.

While we are interested in the ongoing financial viability of the football team, we must not confuse this with the broader goal of the stadium deal. Since the stadium is publicly funded, the primary concern is that the taxpayer is getting good value for their money.

Let's make this clear - now that the Ticats and Council have agreed on a location for a stadium, their problem is how to beg, borrow or steal $50M to pay for it.

An additional proposal from this football team-turned-developer should be evaluated on its own merits, and the City should treat them no differently than any other developer, like Smart!Centres, Trinity, or Harry Stinson.

A new hotel might make money for the Ticats, but what does it do for the rest of the city?

Good Development Partners?

During the last Committee of the Whole meeting about the Aberdeen site, Ticat planning consultant Don May stated that the reason there was no private sector funding for the stadium was that it was planned for an urban location and there was only money to be made in the suburbs.

He generalized that downtown investment amounts to benevolence and that developers and investors need greenfields to make money. This is not only categorically false, it is toxic thinking for a city that is trying to revive the financial productivity of its downtown core after decades of disinvestment.

Mr. May might want to ask these people why they were so generous with their money as to locate and invest in downtown Hamilton:

Benevolence? We are blessed indeed. (photo: Mulberry Street Coffeehouse)
Benevolence? We are blessed indeed. (photo: Mulberry Street Coffeehouse)

Those projects were undertaken in the last year, all the while the Ticats have repeated the same old tune: that downtown is a hopeless investment and smart money only goes to the suburbs.

This attitude betrays their fear and misunderstanding of downtown and their unwillingness to take part in its resurgence. I would not want the City to be in partnership with any developer that holds that view.

Hotel and Convention Centre at Aberdeen?

Downtown Hamilton suffers from a low demand for hotels. One of our cornerstone buildings, the Royal Connaught, sits vacant and remains on the market for that reason. Before we approve another hotel outside of the downtown core, let's examine its potential effect on the already weak hotel market.

There is a vicious cycle involving hotel and convention facilities. The City-owned facilities, Copps Coliseum and the Hamilton Convention Centre, host major events that periodically fill the downtown core with visitors. Those people stay at hotels like the Sheraton and spend money at downtown restaurants and shops. This brings direct revenue to the City as well as spinoff benefits for downtown business.

However, many large events must turn down Hamilton because, despite the generous facilities offering better value than say, Toronto, there isn't enough space in our existing hotels to accommodate the visitors. Thus, Hamilton is losing the potential revenue of thousands of conference guests spilling out into our streets on a more regular basis.

More conventions downtown would also be good news for a restored Connaught Hotel or a new Hilton Hotel, which unfortunately don't exist yet because the market is not yet there.

They cannot exist until the market improves, and the market will not improve until the hotels are there - this is the vicious cycle.

To break this cycle, we must work hard to attract convention business and keep the existing facilities viable. We must also build a healthy market for hotels that is not convention driven, and we do that by building a downtown that people want to visit.

The effect of more facilities in an already weak market should be obvious. The Careport Centre at McMaster Innovation Park has already proven to be a challenge to the downtown convention business. Fortunately, MIP has better plans for this facility. We do not need another convention centre outside of the downtown core.

City Benefits

This latest proposal from the Ticats changes nothing. The challenge remains of how to raise adequate financing to build a stadium for the Pan Am Games and the team, and to do it in such a way that satisfies the mandate of the Future Fund and provides good value for the citizens of Hamilton.

If we are going to entertain this proposal, we must do so on the grounds that it is beneficial for the City in terms of economic opportunities and quality of life, and that does not appear to be the case. Townhouses beside an empty stadium will not keep people in the city, as the Ticats ludicrously suggest.

To re-establish Hamilton as a great city, we need jobs that will keep people here, and a vital and successful downtown core to act as the economic, social and cultural centre that defines our city to the outside world. The Ticats' proposal offers none of these benefits.

Jonathan Dalton runs a small music shop on a two way street in downtown Hamilton. He is a board member of the Durand Neighbourhood Association, and volunteers with Transportation for Livable Communities.

117 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By AreaDude (anonymous) | Posted November 10, 2010 at 21:03:47

I hope the stadium dies quickly if only to get rid of this "precinct" talk. Since when did we become americans? And why have so many adopted refering to a stadium area as a "precinct".

Gotta go, NYPD Blue is about to come on......

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted November 10, 2010 at 21:17:00

Excellent article Jon, thank you very much.

I'm left pondering something the Tiger-Cats claimed during the West Harbour wars. Bob Young claimed he would lose 7 million dollars a year if he located at WH, was that 7 million in the red over a year the or just that he would make 7 million less than the East Mountain location he wanted? Until the mystery financial studies get released on Wikileaks we will never really know exactly what he meant by losing 7 million.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mike_sak (registered) | Posted November 10, 2010 at 21:29:29

If you want "to satisfy the mandate of the Future Fund and provide good value for the citizens of Hamilton" I think the city needs to be brave enough and tell the ti-cats to 'keep a sock in it'! If anything I see the compromise with the ti-cats only hurting the city's goals for redevelopment/reinvestment.

Look at what other BIG cities are doing to improve profitability for both private and public sectors, they are promoting their greatest asset: Waterfronts!!!

Ironically latest issue of APA Planning magazine came in today, and I quote "the most successful waterfront parks are the ones that are connected to the city and to public transit" It goes on to explain what big cities like Cincinnati and even New York's West Side are doing to improve downtown profitability, and surprise surprise, they all include a waterfront stadium.

Seriously, every time I see the McMaster plan I think: "Let's go to the lab after the Cats game." Real innovative.

We already have all the assets in place, it's just a matter of connecting the dots. The Ti-Cats are leading us astray.

Come on Hamilton, Be bold, be brave!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JMorse (registered) | Posted November 10, 2010 at 21:48:48

Having our grand scale projects led by a sports team is beyond shameful. How can we allow this to be taken seriously?!

Even if it was in the right place, the unanswered questions loom large. And then this will inevitably happen: http://www.dcnonl.com/article/id41372

I enjoy the spectacle of the football games, but I'm so disheartened by the direction we're headed I've not renewed my season's tickets. We must rise up and stop this nonsense!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By matthewsweet (registered) | Posted November 10, 2010 at 21:55:39

Let's make this clear - now that the Ticats and Council have agreed on a location for a stadium, their problem is how to beg, borrow or steal $50M to pay for it

I've been in a pessimistic mood lately. I was riding the bus today and looked up at the advertisements in there. They are ALL adverts from public / government organizations ie. Public Health etc. I can't escape the feeling that Hamilton is stuck for all time as a welfare city, hand outstretched waiting for help cause we can't help ourselves. Someone tell me I'm wrong, please.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mike_sak (registered) | Posted November 10, 2010 at 22:13:28

transitstudent, I'm telling you..."you are wrong"

People are not waiting around, there those who see the potential this city has, and are working together to make good things happen as the article demonstrates.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Meredith (registered) - website | Posted November 10, 2010 at 22:23:49

Even the bus ads are changing - Concordia University, the egg farmers, even a few local businesses I've seen put ads in there (P0wnz while it was in operation).

Soon enough the "Just Skyn" and "Gee shucks, wash your hands after choppin' chicken" ads won't be in the preponderance.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By geoff's two cents (registered) | Posted November 10, 2010 at 23:11:14

Jon, as you've said, the above is a lose-lose scenario: If that subsidized suburban hotel and phoney, cheesy "main street" in a sea of parking succeed, they'll do so at the expense of downtown; if they don't succeed, it'll just be a subsidized black hole.

Run while you still can, Hamilton!

I actually spent a day in the city this summer, and was pleasantly surprised at the gradual transformation taking place downtown; the difference from when I lived there two years ago is palpable. Among other things, I enjoyed a very nice cup of coffee on that lovely patio in the picture above. With so many people working hard to improve the downtown, and succeeding brilliantly without begging the city and province to pay their way, the fact that the likes of Bob Young & Co. are looking for a corporate welfare handout is just despicable. The fact that they were offered a very generous corporate welfare handout to begin with and turned it down because it wasn't good enough is simply beyond words. Good lord - I don't even live in Hamilton anymore, but I'm actually embarrassed (as a former resident and Canadian citizen) that the city would even consider taking something like this seriously, and spending tens of millions of public dollars on it to boot.

Comment edited by geoff's two cents on 2010-11-10 22:16:12

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By westandonguard (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 01:08:44

Talk to the Molinaro group, White Star and their group of company's -- White Star, who are just itching for resolution to their WH lands. No developers standing by? You gotta be kidding! Release White Star's land back to them from the ridiculous criminal abayance junction put upon them for so many years by this City and watch investment on the waterfront fly! Stadium or no stadium.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 06:57:54

So Jon, what do you think city council will do with the information you provide in your article?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JMorse (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 07:13:05

"With so many people working hard to improve the downtown, and succeeding brilliantly without begging the city and province to pay their way, the fact that the likes of Bob Young & Co. are looking for a corporate welfare handout is just despicable."

We need to focus our message on the people who are not helping. A large amount of locals are speak only negatively about this city. Values are often limited to the football team and the right to drive and throw out unlimited amounts of garbage. Our local mainstream media is not helping. Comments on the Spec and callers to CHML reflect this regressive mentality. CHML aggressively feeds the fire without shame.

Mostly, our city government tends to follow the collective will. The collective will is misguided, and needs to be enlightened. The new council cannot be expected to change minds. Reason must take control, or at least the spotlight, in the local mainstream media.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 07:46:21

Amazing but not surprising this crew cannot see the benefits of the plan and continue to lie about the real investment that the Tigercats have offered, the only real offer to date and likely the only offer that can be expected given the background of Whitestar and Katz. At least the writer above acknowledges that the collective will of the people is not in sync with this group of people. Thank goodness for democracy

Comment edited by turbo on 2010-11-11 06:51:00

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mark-Alan Whittle (anonymous) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 08:00:41

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 RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 08:09:04

Here is a link to an article titled "Pan-Am stadium: Where's the money?" by John Kernaghan in today's Hamilton Spectator: http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 08:11:17

I feel that the article is a little over the top in it's personal opinion, sorry Jon. Let's look at more than just the stadium deal, look at all that has happened over the past many years. If the ti-Cats had not put forward this plan, do you think this (still) inept city council would propose anything themselves? History proves not. The problem this city has had for generations is that it hasn't gotten the provincial and federal support needed like Toronto has, and does nothing but cry about it. And now that we are getting it handed to us (yes with conditions) we try to screw it up and make it our way or else. Who would invest in a city with that attitude?? This city is sinking further and further into the mud and we should be taking any investment, any, that gets some sort of forward progress moving.

I have been against BY and his ultimatum and realize this is a keep face move on his part but I have to get behind it because there has to be a realization that things will only get worse for this city if we don't tag along.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JMorse (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 08:45:30

"Amazing but not surprising this crew cannot see the benefits of the plan and continue to lie about the real investment that the Tigercats have offered, the only real offer to date and likely the only offer that can be expected given the background of Whitestar and Katz."

Ya, a great plan for BY & Co. A plan to take and keep all the public money! I'd rather see no stadium than see this opportunity controlled by a private entity. Contrary to opinions expressed here, the city and its people are smart enough to drive their own destiny. Let's not get bullied or shamed into accepting a raw deal. This is a case of domestic abuse. Like we won't risk standing up for ourselves for fear of being left alone. Let 'em go.. we don't NEED them. They are causing more harm than good. I thought this city and it's people were tough. Not so if we're gonna keep being held prey by these needy (or greedy, who cares?) predators.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Sarah Matthews (anonymous) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 09:04:04

Well done Jon!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GiveItUp (anonymous) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 09:28:11

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 HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 09:42:01

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 highwater (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 10:06:28

bring another hotel downtown

Only someone who has drunk the ticat koolaid could be deluded enough to think this site is 'downtown'. This proposal will take business away from downtown. That's what's wrong with that.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jonathan dalton (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 10:18:55

Jon and RTH....why don't you just give up the TiCat bashing...they are putting up a proposal and some money and a plan to enhance the precinct, bring another hotel downtown and more revenue for their business and the city...what is wrong with that?

A few things already mentioned in the article:

  1. We want the Ticats to be financially viable, but this in itself is not the goal of the stadium project.

  2. The hotel proposal is extraneous to the City's commitments for the Pan Am Games, and should be evaluated on its own merits.

  3. The proposed hotel is not downtown, and as I've argued, could hurt the downtown hotel market which is already weak.

  4. The proposed convention centre will bring in money for the Ticats' business, but not necessarily for the City. In fact, I've argued that it would be in direct competition with existing City owned facilities.

I don't see the above points as Ticat bashing, so please throw out that straw man. My concern is the city, and I'm evaluating this proposal on its benefit to the city.

Comment edited by jonathan dalton on 2010-11-11 09:20:51

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By slodrive (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 10:22:43

I don't see this plan as nearly as off-base as many here do. It seems a bit pipe-dreamish, but aside from that, it feels sound. Given the proximity to MIP, a smallish conference centre and hotel wouldn't be a bad thing. It's not the sign of th apocalypse for downtown hotel initiatives either. To me, this just makes Hamilton, overall, as a better destination for people to hold conferences -- and/or large scale events. That, in effect, can help raise the demand for hotels in the core; thus, giving places like the Royal Cannaught the boost it needs.

Currently there's almost nothing. The Sheraton and Crowne Plaza have limited ability to host events. Thus, it's easier for organizers to look toward Mississauga and Toronto. This would definitely help put Hamilton on the consideration list for hosting such events. And, as mentioned, help activate the facilities we do have.

I think this is a good thing. Regardless of who is pulling the strings.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robbie K (anonymous) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 10:23:10

I would not say it has NO city benefits. It has benefits, just not the ones most of us are looking for. If indeed the deal does go through and thats what ends up being built then the City is going to have to leverage that as best they can. Game Day Trolly to Hess?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 10:31:19

Everbody was happy when there was the other proposal for a hotel on the MIP site, what happened??

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JMorse (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 10:59:17

"Everbody was happy when there was the other proposal for a hotel on the MIP site, what happened??"

This was before it was going to cost us an ENTIRE STADIUM to build. If the site is so great for hotels, etc. why can't they be built without this enormous gift?

Comment edited by JMorse on 2010-11-11 10:00:01

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MALEX (anonymous) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 11:29:54

So yesterday, when I looked at the PDF of the Brochure touting the new Stadium/hotel and its benefits, it listed "pursuing a major league soccer franchise"...so of course, I emailed Scott Mitchell and told him how thrilled I was that we were getting an "MLS" (Major League Soccer) team for Hamilton. And that I couldn't wait for the rivalry between Toronto FC and our hometown club.

Never heard back. But imagine my surprise when I looked at those same PDFs today! The "major league soccer" franchise has been downgraded to simply a "professional soccer team"...

Love the way the Ticats are simply making it up as they go along! lol...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jonathan dalton (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 11:32:46

There is much more to the city of Hamilton than the downtown core.

Mark, I'm sorry but overall your response comes across as nothing but contempt for the downtown core. I know you love to extol the virtues of our suburbs and they give you the lifestyle you enjoy, and that's fine. You still need to realize that the downtown will always define the city whether most of us care about it or not.

Meanwhile the Greenfields on Hamilton mountain and Stoney Creek mountain are being developed at a furious pace, at least ten local developers are raking in millions, while adding more owners to the property tax base, who presently pay 85% on the costs.

Surely you realize this is the problem? As I said, the focus of developers has been abundant greenfields, especially when the taxpayer builds them a half billion dollar highway system. Of course this is lucrative. The error I am pointing out is to assume that the only money to be made is in the suburbs. The truth is there is easy money to be made in the suburbs, often at the taxpayer's direct expense.

In your story you mention two buildings, who pay commercial taxes. I wonder what their contribution is, and if they are in tax-arrears? What kind of incentives did they get from City Hall? This group (commercial) contributes less than 10% of our costs. Industrial taxes are even lower, percentage wise, and shrinking (US Steel for example).

Again, surely you realize this is the problem? The 85% needs to go down, the 15% needs to go up. The two buildings I mentioned are part of the solution - a solution in which the developers and the city make money. These buildings were sold on the open market. They have new owners, they are not in tax arrears. City Hall rightfully has incentives to develop downtown properties because this is crucial to the success of our city. However, I can tell you that there is no residential component to either of these properties thus they did not qualify under the residential loan program. Let me think of how many ways the city makes money. -The building is fully occupied. Higher taxes. -Millions in construction is done by a local company. That company pays taxes. -Building permits. Apparently our beloved home builders don't always need one.
-Increased property assessment. Higher taxes. -New business on ground floor pays fees and permits. These are only direct revenue, and they're only off the top of my head. Who paid for these projects? Private capital. They were funded because they are going to be profitable.

I can't believe your suburban cheerleading would suggest that an affluent outer city surrounding a disinvested core is an acceptable state of affairs. You're describing a bedroom community economy in which homeowners pay 85% of the taxes and suggesting that more suburban homes for people who increasingly don't work here is going to fix it? This way of thinking is what has kept downtown struggling and led the city into the economic nightmare it's in. Fortunately, not all of the developers think that way.

Comment edited by jonathan dalton on 2010-11-11 10:33:44

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 12:19:30

Except Longwood and Aberdeen is not in the suburbs by any definition

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted November 11, 2010 at 12:19:40

Today, after all that has transpired over the summer, I wonder if we can ever be happy with any proposal from anyone.

I am tired of the bad-mouthing of our elected officials. The trash talk about the Cats, and hits at one another.

Not to be a downer, but today I couldn't help but really wonder. Close to 900 people are now out of work except for the foreman living for 3 weeks at a time inside the plant away from their families. Those out of work are collecting a mere $200 a week. Many of these families will lose their homes, have no christmases, and perhaps for some, even their marriages will not survive if this drags on too long.

Now there are talks/rumors (I am referencing second hand information but the quesiton still remains), of the retirees losing their pensions completely? What does my 95 year old grandfather do? My dad perhaps is still 'young' enough to work at 61, but what do these people do with 900 young Stelco employees now out of work, and the possibiliy of 9,000 people collecting pensions also trying to find some source of income?

What does any of this stadium or downtown talk matter, if 10,000 people in this city all of a sudden have little source of income? Not to mention all the jobs that have already been lost over such a short time period.

Maybe I am over-dramatizing here, but today as we reflect on those who have made the ultimate sacrifice fighting for our freedom, as I think of all those out of work sleepless with worry about how they are going to support their families, pensioners perhaps too old and broken to find work if their pensions are taken away, and I just stopped to wonder.

How could the future fund help the 'people' who now need or will desperately need, our help? Perhaps that sounds crazy, but how can we effectively assist these people? Sandwhiches and words of support are great and touching and are nice feel-good stories, but when we crawl into our warm beds in the houses we own, full bellies and presents under the trees, a tuna sandwhich and and email just won't be enough.

I don't want to look at them with pitty. I want for 'us' to find a solution and now, before so much is lost.

The most touching speach I ever heard at council over the course of the summer, was from a woman named Valerie. Not sure of her last name but anyone who attends council meetings, would know who she is. She brings this stadium debate and so many other high expenditure debates, down to earth. None of it matters if there are people suffering out there with no insight as to how we can help them.

Life is too short. We should all be accountable for those who are suffering.

Forget the stadium. Forget Aerotropolis. Forget it all. Our major projects in this city need to be about the people. They make this city what it is. Not steel, brick, and concrete.

It's time we ask the people going forward, what they want. What are their thoughts as to how we can fix what is really broke in this city - people.

Excuse the rant, but I am feeling sad today for all those that are suffering. Even if for right now anyway, that suffering is only in their thoughts.

Comment edited by lawrence on 2010-11-11 11:20:16

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 12:22:32

I disagree with this article, and while I still would have preferred a West Harbour location or a true downtown core location, the CP rail location isn't a complete bust for the city as a whole as this article states. It is a far better site selection then Confederation Park, that is for sure.

First off having a major hotel and conference hall in proximity to McMaster Innovation Park makes sense. McMaster innovation park is intended to bring jobs and innovation to the city, and seems like exactly the place where a nearby hotel should be for visiting businessmen. The advantage if of course is the tax revenue such an establishment can bring in for the city, and increasing tax revenue so we can offer further incentives to build downtown benefit's the city as a whole. The fact there is a hotel development gives something to entice a hotel developer into contributing to the stadium costs itself, for their own benefit.

Second, the stadium is to be used for more then just football. Bob Young has pursued bringing an NASL franchise to the city for some time. NASL being of course the league where the Montreal Impact and Vancouver Whitecaps began playing and they have since been promoted to MLS play. This is the same league which FC Edmonton is joining.

Third, the CP Railyard is also in need of redevelopment. Granted that redevelopment is not as urgent as the West Harbour but it is a location that offers brownfield remediation.

Fourth, a stadium at this site further enhances the appeal of a LRT. Main successful cities utilize a concentrated downtown core that then utilizes major transit lines along attractions to encourage further development of a city.

Fifth, this site is linked to the existing GO transit line, thus offers the ability to have trains run into the site for game days to somewhat alleviate traffic concerns that have plagued our city.

and last is that the site promotes a positive image for Hamilton. Too long people have bit into the Skyway bridge's view of Hamilton. This site is located on the beautiful West end between Cootes Paradise and the Escarpment, with Chedoke Golf Course and the nearby trail system.

The point is, it's a compromise site, it offers benefits for both the Tiger-Cats and the city and failing anything if the club does approach financial stability, increasing the rent is always an option further down the road.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Borrelli (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 12:27:23

"Forget the stadium. Forget Aerotropolis. Forget it all. Our major projects in this city need to be about the people. They make this city what it is. Not steel, brick, and concrete."

Absolutely, Lawrence. Our leaders shouldn't even be considering another case of corporate welfare such as building the Cats a stadium, especially when there are real flesh and blood people in this city that have fallen on hard times.

How many of our politicians cited "poverty" as a pressing issue in this city? I don't believe for a second that the tens of millions of dollars in handouts that the Cats are looking for will translate into a better life for the city's poorest. There are plenty of better places to invest increasingly scarce public funds than lining Bob Young's pockets.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted November 11, 2010 at 12:44:20

Thanks Borelli. I just don't want the Cats to think that we think there proposals are not worthy and that most importantly, that we don't appreciate what they bring to our city. I for one do appreciate them and am trying to see this process as just standard procedure. Trying not to be judgemental for once. There is just many things about it that I don't like.

I want the Cats to know that this is about 'we as a city are hurting', not that we feel the Cats or council on the flipside, are a bunch of bullies or half-wits. How do we help our people, and save the Cats too? The people though, do need to come first.

I went to my first Ti-Cat game with my dad last weekend in a very long time. Years we both figured. I can't imagine that never happening again. I had such a great time with my dad, as I have when I have taken my one daughter a couple of times. I hope I will be able to take my youngest next year as well - with my whole heart I want that, and more time with my dad and all of my family at whatever stadium the Cats play in.

I want us to have our cake and eat it too, but as it relates to a new stadium, the best thing that could happen is that suddenly so much private sector money floats foreward, that we don't even need the future fund to build this stadium.

Big fat dream? Perhaps, but it could be one of only a few ways we as a city can feel good about building new versus just working with the old - if that would even in itself, keep the Cats here.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 16:56:24

Jon, I could not have said it any better myself.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 17:13:06

-Hammer- said:

"Fifth, this site is linked to the existing GO transit line, thus offers the ability to have trains run into the site for game days to somewhat alleviate traffic concerns that have plagued our city."

Where have you heard it's linked to the existing GO transit line? There are no plans for any type of GO station or service down there that I've heard of.

While the tracks are theoretically connected, the whole reason all day GO service doesn't exist currently in Hamilton is because the tracks through downtown Hamilton are "at capacity" with freight traffic, and GO is not permitted to run any more trains on them.

That's why any plans for all day GO service has always involved a new station on James St. North.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 17:30:27

My wife and myself love the tranquility the harbour provides us now with our walks we do there and have a picnic by the water. Why can't we keep that instead of having 25,000 or so football fans (and I'm one) disturbing this area by the water suited for tranquility and a nice small ampitheatre? The CPR site is perfect, not by a nice harbour but by a major highway that 25000 or so football fans is suited for.

Why people want to ruin what we have and can develop upon, tranquility, at our habour with football fans is beyond my imagination. CRP is close enough to downtown to get those that still want to go for booze afterward the game to do so, they don't need it at WH for that reason.

Please, don't spoil my WH my wife and me love now and are looking forward to loving more in the future with football fans.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Gift Horse (anonymous) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 19:50:13

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 Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted November 11, 2010 at 20:41:46

When Hamiltonians gripe about not getting Federal and Provincial cash, it's because of the years of social service downloading which has crippled us financially in an attempt to meet their budgets. Would tens of millions from them to build a stadium help? Sure. But it's not a substitute for actually funding social programs, or giving us worthwhile infrastructure projects.

A stadium at the waterfront would have been cool. But as many of us voiced at a time - we supported THAT stadium, and not just any stadium scheme. The whole thing has always smelled, and now it stinks.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rednic (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 21:06:26

I'm an I.T. guy and i think this really needs to said as i've been watching this for a few months ( for the record i HATE football, and only moved to Hamilton a 2 years ago ).

Bob Young made his fortune on Linux. Linux ( for those don't know ) is a free operating system that competes ( some what ( with windows and MacOS and BeOS ( if your really a nerd ). The main point is Linux is FREE, distributed with a license that basically allows you to do anything you want with it ...

The point here is Bob made his fortune (? ) by offering services based on the sweat and energy of others...

So we translate this the Tigercats ... and what do we see .. Bob waiting for the sweat and enrgy of hamilton tax payer dollers to build him a stadium and then when once he has that he may contribute a little ( a few hotels and sports bars) to make his fortune at ..

Well my response is NO WAY any one who thinks the CFL is get rich quick scheme needs their head testing ..

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By carnival (anonymous) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 21:13:18

I heard instead of a hotel and stadium, Bob Young and the hamilton Tiger cats had a change in heart and are donating a Biopharmaceutical pilot plant in light of the latest discoveries made at McMaster.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 21:52:39

Earl,

What makes you think that football fans are going to stay at the waterfront when there isn't a game?

Rednic,

Ryan pointed this out a while ago. The tickets aren't enough to provide the revenue that BY is hoping for, so he's investing beside the stadium to capture the other revenue streams that the stadium will generate. He's also requested the parking revenues and naming rights for the stadium, even though the stadium will still belong to the city.

This is the only reason that I can think of that WH wouldn't work for him as there are already facilities in place to capture those revenue streams downtown, unfortunately not owned by him.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By adam2 (anonymous) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 22:09:51

Well, ward 2's new counsellor WORKS for the Ticats, so that has to be a conflict of interest.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 22:31:23

I think I've come to the conclusion, and speaking as both a long time proud season ticket holder of the TigerCats and very proud Hamiltonian who loves the peace and tranquility of the west harbourfront and hope it stays this way without a stadium, that if WH ends up being the only place for a stadium for Hamilton, I really hope the city passes on the stadium altogether. At least the area won't be ruined by a stadium in the wrong place and a proper plan can happen for this area that keeps with the sereneness and peacefulness the area deserves.

Brandon, for those dates when there is a football or soccer game there with thousands of fans, it may ruin the experience for those that can only go at those times for a nice quiet walk on the harbour trail. That would be a shame.

Comment edited by HamiltonFan on 2010-11-11 21:34:15

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 22:43:25

The stadium we thought was to be a "Gift Horse" was actually a "Trojan Horse". Use the gift to get inside the gates and then raid and plunder.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JonC (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 23:08:09

Outside of all of the benefits/lack thereof, it blows my mind that the ticats made this graphic (or okayed) when clearly, that is not a 50k person football stadium (you only get that multi tier seating in the endzones for the big stadiums) and more importantly the lines are painted for 100 yard american football. A little effort would be nice guys.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rednic (registered) | Posted November 12, 2010 at 00:06:04

Brandon; i guess my point is that bob young is (lucky) professional leach .....

He does not 'invent' he 'uses'

I'd be very interested to know how many games a year he actually shows up for ...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By If business is so easy... (anonymous) | Posted November 12, 2010 at 08:16:09

"i guess my point is that bob young is (lucky) professional leach .....
He does not 'invent' he 'uses'"

Now this is just funny. If building successful businesses is so easy why are you wasting your time posting here? You could just borrow someone else's ideas and build your own billion dollar business and then use that to help the City build an LRT, or a Hospital, or whatever it is you think should be built instead of a stadium.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MattM (registered) | Posted November 12, 2010 at 09:01:13

Here we go with the "build it yourself" crap again. Does this have to come up in EVERY debate over development in this city?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted November 12, 2010 at 12:37:53

Earl,

If you can only go for a quiet walk when the 'Cats are playing a home game and you need to go to a waterfront, you can always go to Princess Point.

Matt,

It's not that anyone is demanding that BY build the stadium himself, it's that he's expecting the city to build him a stadium at a location of his choice and let him collect all the money generated by it. If he wants those terms he needs to put up most of the cash for the stadium, otherwise the benefits from the stadium should go to those who are paying for it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By another capitalist (anonymous) | Posted November 12, 2010 at 13:23:49

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 HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted November 12, 2010 at 13:44:58

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 HamiltonFan on 2010-11-12 12:47:10

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted November 12, 2010 at 14:22:08

Telepathy? Precognition? A really strong man-crush on BY?

You can guess all you want, but all we've seen so far is BY asking for all the revenues generated while investing none of his cash into the Stadium. Why would someone invest millions of their own money when they have sycophants willing to give them taxpayer money instead?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted November 12, 2010 at 15:02:13

It's hardly a radical idea that if Bob Young wants to own something like this, he should pay for it himself. Or at least it shouldn't be - in this day and age of crony capitalism, I suppose it is.

If this lunacy is getting called out (yet again), it's only because it's a very questionable deal. People keep complaining about how Hamilton is such a hostile environment for developments, but if it's so radical to even question an extra 50-70% cost increase on an essentially free hundred million dollar gift to a private sector business, then how hostile can it be?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted November 12, 2010 at 16:02:40

I seem to recall Turbo telling us that there was no private investment at WH because it was such a lousy site. Given the unbelievable response from private investors for the Longwood set I guess we can see that it is definitely the better choice.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted November 12, 2010 at 19:15:33

"Given the unbelievable response from private investors for the Longwood site"

I must have missed something, have any actual investors actually committed any money? I haven't heard of any real investor yet, how's on board?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted November 12, 2010 at 20:51:50

have any actual investors actually committed any money?

Sarcasm my dear boy, sarcasm.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ImproveTheHammer (registered) | Posted November 12, 2010 at 21:47:39

Never heard back. But imagine my surprise when I looked at those same PDFs today! The "major league soccer" franchise has been downgraded to simply a "professional soccer team"...

Love the way the Ticats are simply making it up as they go along! lol...

The Ticats have long proposed a USL soccer team. If you read "major league soccer" than I would attribute it to a typo more than deceitfulness or "making it up as they go along".

Comment edited by ImproveTheHammer on 2010-11-12 20:48:05

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted November 12, 2010 at 22:01:24

Why down vote sensible statements wether they are positive or negative?? Pathetic.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ImproveTheHammer (registered) | Posted November 12, 2010 at 22:09:43

The title of the article is "No City Benefits in Latest Ticat Proposal". And I think that is overstating things a bit.

While it is fair to "want more", I can think of some tangible city benefits: 1) The city gets to replace a 80-year old facility with a brand new $100-150 million dollar facility at a cost of $40-$50 million 2) This proposal amounts to several million dollars worth of capital investment in the city 3) A viable football franchise. 4) The opportunity to host more events that bring people into the city - soccer, concerts, monster truck shows 5) The opportunity to host two Grey Cups in the next 10 years - which are guaranteed to bring 30,000-40,000 people into the city in what is traditionally a low tourist season

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robbie K (anonymous) | Posted November 13, 2010 at 00:29:20

ImproveTheHammer, I completely agree. I think there are some people on this site that have to deal with the fact that although most of us agree WH would be the best spot, it is looking very likly that this new location may win out. It's time to be a little objective and less subjective on the subject. Funding aside (we need more private dollars) there is a lot of oportunity here. Hey, if we get enough funding woulden't it be nice to scale back some of the FF and put it into whatever we think is acceptable for the WH.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 13, 2010 at 08:01:22

There is a lot more investment at Longwood than at Rheem (not WH nor downtown but in between BTW). Rheem was zero, Longwood is in the 10's of millions from the Tigercats alone. You may think its not enough but its not zero. I'll reserve the right to say that RTH posters grossly undervalue the investment proposals on the table and I suspect they'll reserve the right to say that I grossly exaggerate the investment proposals but the fact remains its something vs nothing from the Tigercats and nobody else has made any concrete proposal. You believe they will and are willing to walk away from $70M outside government money and I don't believe they will and am willing to wait to see the final draft before I pass judgement on whether it is a good deal or not. You don't want the Tigercats to earn any money and I'm willing to see them make a modest amount in order to minimize the ongoing costs to the city going forward. You believe a stadium can be privately financed and I don't. The real issue is what we believe is the non-monetary benefit to the city that might make it worthwhile. IMO its the same as all HECFI facilities and the AGH. None would survive privately but they contribute to the community at large justifying the investment the city made in them over the years. This investment is not about whats good for one part of the city or one unrelated pet project but rather whats makes the ENTIRE city more attractive and a better place to live maximizing the money we have available from outside sources to stretch our own dollars. Maybe this project does this, maybe it doesn't. That is a fair debate. Whats not fair is to expect private investment with no prospects of benefits from that investment

Comment edited by turbo on 2010-11-13 07:07:37

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted November 13, 2010 at 09:06:58

Yes z jones, I just can't help myself sometimes.

Still, what private money other than the 8-10 million over 10 years from the Tiger-Cats is on the table? Some may be rumoured, but so far who has come forward and made a real commitment?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted November 13, 2010 at 09:18:12

You don't want the Tigercats to earn any money...

You believe a stadium can be privately financed...

Whats not fair is to expect private investment with no prospects of benefits from that investment

Lose these tiresome strawmen, and then we'll talk about what constitutes 'fair debate'.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By geoff's two cents (registered) | Posted November 13, 2010 at 12:43:38

I should add to my post above by saying that, following precedents established in other major Canadian cities, I don't want my federal tax dollars to support a cent more of Hamilton's Pan-Am stadium than what is necessary for the successful hosting of the games (even here, an Aberdeen site is of dubious value). Anything over and above that, particularly if the proposal adds nothing to the livability of one of Canada's larger urban centres (and would in fact act as a drain on downtown), should be privately funded. Bob Young, you have freeway-side stadium naming rights: Now work your free market magic with them.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted November 13, 2010 at 16:10:29

This is very different from the AGH and Hecfi for a couple of reasons. First, because it would be handed directly to a private sector business. Second because it involves buying a whole new site and building a whole new structure, unlike the recent structural upgrades at the AGH. And thirdly, because they exist right in the middle of downtown, not off by the highway somewhere.

And in any case HECFI is a five-letter argument against any of this kind of investment. Copps Colosseum was a total nightmare to build, and sat as a big empty field for years between failed contractors. And it never generated the kind of development that was promised (and in fact flattened much of it) - the stores across the street couldn't even stay open.

Maybe we're "undervaluing" this stadium, but where exactly is all this value? It may not (all) be coming from municipal coffers, but it's still money from us, or other people like us. Just because money's being spent building things doesn't mean we're "winning". If it were a hospital or a school, people would be fighting to stretch and justify every dollar.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonDudette (anonymous) | Posted November 13, 2010 at 18:14:48

Somebody say brilliant?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted November 13, 2010 at 21:49:45

Turbo,

The only person interested in investing at Longwood is Bob Young, because what he's offering to build already exists in the downtown area.

The Whitestar group has some interesting plans for the area around the WH location, so you can't tell me that there's no interest there.

Please explain to me how it makes sense to a) build this stadium in a location that really only benefits Bob Young's investments; b) give Bob Young naming rights to the city's stadium; and c) give Bob Young all the parking revenues from our stadium.

Contrary to your expressed statement that we don't want the 'Cats to earn any money, I want them to earn money from their core product, not from public money invested. If BY wants to kick in his own money to help build the stadium then he's more than welcome to a return on that investment. Otherwise that money should come to the city. Please explain to me why that's wrong.

A downtown stadium will bring people and their money to the core where it's needed. Longwood will bring people from the highway to the stadium and back to the highway, with a minor stop in Bob's World.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ty Webb (anonymous) | Posted November 14, 2010 at 10:33:58

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 Robbie K (anonymous) | Posted November 14, 2010 at 18:32:19

Given the turd they just laid on the field today I came up with at least one benefit of it NOT being directly downtown :

My car will be safe from drunken fans when the team gets tossed out of the playoffs (if they make it) for years to come.

Zing!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JMorse (registered) | Posted November 14, 2010 at 19:37:31

So the term of my experiment with the Tiger Cats is over. I moved here last fall, wanted to get in on the spirit of the football games so I bought season's tickets. I enjoyed all of the games. I'm not renewing my seats for 2011 for a few reasons, but the stadium nonsense is one of them.

This city needs many things, and wants a stadium. The city's people need to value what they have, which is more than most will admit. The city has much in terms of heart and soul that are part of all the different people living here. These are assets that cannot be measured, or valued in a monetary sense. The types of assets that can create confidence among their bearer. A stadium is a superficial plan to obtain confidence by buying something, kinda like breast implants. We feel we're not good enough without it, so instead of fostering confidence from within, we'll try to purchase some. This may make us happy because of the attention we'll get, but we'll soon realize its only from people with one thing on their mind. We end up alienating everybody else, and valued only by those who like us for our "improvements".

If you don't love yourself, Hamilton, nobody else will.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted November 14, 2010 at 20:10:15

Rheem was zero, Longwood is in the 10's of millions from the Tigercats alone. You may think its not enough but its not zero.

You're right, it's not zero, it's less than zero.

Once you add the additional $50-70 million it will cost to upgrade the highway exit and feeder streets, buy the land (CP's price keeps getting higher the more desperate we get), relocate the tenants, remediate the soil, yadda yadda yadda, it's a lot more in additional costs than what the Ticats are willing to invest anywhere. And they're not investing most of it in the actual stadium but in Bob's World next door.

So yeah, bully for the Ticats for kicking in some investment except that the taxpayer actually ends up even worse off at the end of the day.

Meanwhile Molinaro Group, White Star, Katz and Frank Gehry all want to invest in the West Harbour.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted November 15, 2010 at 07:30:13

A stadium is a superficial plan to obtain confidence by buying something, kinda like breast implants. We feel we're not good enough without it, so instead of fostering confidence from within, we'll try to purchase some. This may make us happy because of the attention we'll get, but we'll soon realize its only from people with one thing on their mind. We end up alienating everybody else, and valued only by those who like us for our "improvements".

If you don't love yourself, Hamilton, nobody else will.

A ginormous tip of the hat to JMorse and their seemingly-inappropriate-yet-staggeringly-accurate analogy of the stadium issue. (Oh, and a figurative coffee sent your way.)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jonathan dalton (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 10:01:37

If you don't love yourself, Hamilton, nobody else will.

Yep, so true.

I hate to have to be 'predictable' on the issue as some of you have pointed out. Now if we see a stadium related proposal that isn't predictably lame, maybe I'll surprise you.

Comment edited by jonathan dalton on 2010-11-15 09:01:53

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 11:14:11

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 z jones (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 11:46:41

Explain to me again how $10-20 million (extra Ticat money) minus $70 million (extra taxpayer costs) equals more than zero?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 12:22:15

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.

Comment edited by turbo on 2010-11-15 11:25:13

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 12:29:37

Turbo,

Where is all the extra investment from the private sector? Somebody once said "as in every investment decision if there are no benefits there is no investment". Seems to me that the only beneficiary here, by your own standards, is the 'Cats.

The investment that they're putting into it ALREADY EXISTS downtown.

Comment edited by Brandon on 2010-11-15 11:30:00

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 12:43:02

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 2010-11-15 11:44:57

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By slodrive (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 13:24:33

Anyone who was at the game yesterday could see what a monumental void it would be without the Ticats as part of our city. Nowhere else, no way else, could you get nearly 30,000 voices all banding together and screaming for what basically amounts to civic pride.

You can argue about how trivial it may be (or how the energy could be better spent elsewhere), but you can't argue that it exists.

Because of that, I sincerely hope that a solution is arrived at that ensures the team survives and thrives long after I'm fertilizer.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 14:17:09

Turbo,

I think Brandon is really saying that the facilities Bob Young is going to construct at Longwood already exist downtown.

I also have to disagree with what you said,"I don't know where the extra private investment is. Thats not whats being discussed." Actually, that is a great part of the discussion. Bob does not have enough money to actually construct any of his planned facilities, he absolutely has to have other private investors buy into his vision or none of Bob's World is going to be built. Bob will only own the land he purchases, I'm pretty sure he intends to have leasing arrangements with other investors who so far have not come forward. Until some private money materializes Bob's plans are only big dreams.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 14:26:31

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 2010-11-15 13:30:58

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 14:37:47

Turbo,

You would help all here if you learned to read slowly and completely. I only clarified what I interpreted Brandon's message was, I did not dispute it or endorse it. Please read what I wrote in the first sentence again and I think you will see what I am talking about.

The rest of my post discusses the fact that no other investors have as of yet come forward to commit money to Bob's world. The position inferred in the rest of my post is that without other investors none of Bob's plan will come to fruition. That is not to say that investors will not come forward later, but certainly nobody (other than Bob) has so far expressed any interest in Bob's World. The message is that there is a real risk that none of Bob's plans will ever happen, there is no guarantee that anything he has planned will ever get built. If we proceed with the city's secondary location to please Bob we as a city may never see what he has promised us in return because there is no other money on the table. I don't know how to make my position any clearer.

Edit: Turbo, it is also a courtesy to show separately what you have changed in a posting edit, other than correcting grammar and spelling mistakes.

Comment edited by mrjanitor on 2010-11-15 13:40:07

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 14:41:52

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 2010-11-15 13:43:14

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 14:43:03

I could not have created a funnier reply even if I tried!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 14:43:51

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 PseudonymousCoward (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 14:44:22

It's time to stop feeding this obvious troll.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 14:46:53

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 Brandon (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 15:32:29

Turbo,

Mr Janitor is essentially correct, but let me restate it again.

You said that "as in every investment decision if there are no benefits there is no investment". You've said that there's lots of investment at the Longwood location. The only investment I've seen is what the 'Cats are planning on building beside the stadium. By your own standard, the only group benefiting from this location is the 'Cats.

Those facilities, restaurants, hotels, parking, etc... already exist downtown, the problem with the WH location is that they don't funnel any money towards Bob.

Apparently there wasn't enough parking downtown. There's less at Longwood. Apparently access was an issue downtown. With several major streets and a GO station across the street, there's far easier access downtown than at Longwood which has two small streets leading to it, plus a small highway access to disperse over 2,000 vehicles. Can you say "bottleneck"?

You find the term "Bob's World" offensive? I find the concept of it offensive. He wants all parking revenue, he wants all naming rights revenues, he wants to build restaurants and hotels that will profit himself based on a huge taxpayer investment. What better description than "Bob's World"?

That taxpayer investment should go to bringing people downtown where many business owners will benefit from it.

An honest negotiator would not at the last minute threaten to take his ball and go home. If WH was such a bad location it should have been taken off the table years ago. The person who interviewed him when he made the quote "We'll play anywhere" stands by it. BY may regret having said it, but that doesn't change his original position.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 16:02:09

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 2010-11-15 15:02:38

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MattM (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 16:10:34

Bob's World. Bob's Land. Bob Village. Bob District.

Bob precinct. Whichever name, it's crap.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 16:11:45

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 2010-11-15 15:12:51

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 16:31:00

Turbo,

First you say this,"I don't know where the extra private investment is. Thats not whats being discussed."

Then you say this,"I said there was an investment from the private sector at Longwood. There is."

All said on the same day. And you wonder why nobody respects you.

Please disclose who the investors are, how much they are investing and when was their participation announced. I have asking for this information at the beginning of this discussion thread and still have not received an answer. You obviously have the information everyone else does not, would you please be so kind as to enlighten us with the information on the mystery investors you have inside knowledge about.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 16:42:49

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 2010-11-15 15:43:29

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 16:47:14

I couldn't have come up with that myself....AGAIN!

Slowly, so you can follow along at home Turbo....

What

Investors

Other

Than

The

Tiger

Cats

?

Edit: spacing to force Turbo to read slowly

Comment edited by mrjanitor on 2010-11-15 15:48:32

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 16:55:35

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 2010-11-15 15:57:44

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 17:24:39

Turbo,

It's not Bob's Stadium and that's the problem. Bob's World is what he's building beside the stadium.

If we go the way of Longwood then all revenue derived from the people coming into town will go into Bob's pocket. If we go WH then that revenue will be spread out over the businesses that exist downtown. This is why Bob doesn't like WH.

Taxpayer investments should generate revenues for an area, not a person.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 17:27:21

Mr Janitor,

The post that referred to the plethora of other investors was mine and was sarcasm to demonstrate to Turbo that Longwood failed his own test of generating a lot of investment.

The fact that he doesn't know of any more only further proves the point about the site.

Comment edited by Brandon on 2010-11-15 16:27:34

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 20:01:20

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 2010-11-15 19:03:03

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted November 15, 2010 at 22:28:44

Absolutely ridiculous and completely contrary to everything I've posted here. You complain about being misrepresented and then proceed happily to do the same thing to me.

Bob is perfectly welcome to invest in downtown. I just can't countenance him being the only one to benefit from a $100M taxpayer investment.

The problem with Longwood is that there are no other businesses in the area that can benefit from having a stadium there. That's the real reason BY wants it there.

Comment edited by Brandon on 2010-11-15 21:33:09

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By argo? (anonymous) | Posted November 16, 2010 at 07:02:59

Hey I just found out the Ticats lost to the Argos. It would have been much more fun to have been cheering them on like I normally do at the game (and help make it a sell out). Not a sell out? I guess there are lot more FORMER Ti-cat fans out there like myself that have found this end around play by BY being so disgusting. This especially at a time when our city needs serious downtown investment.

Like others here I welcome BY to fund his Ticat World by himself. It is too late to make the stadium what it should have been - a community stadium with a track and an important amateur athletic legacy. Running and track are more important to this community than football and BY successfully removed the track from our stadium. Disgusting and something I will never forgive the Ticats for doing.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By skully2001 (registered) | Posted November 16, 2010 at 08:34:22

I agree with you, Argo, and I'll never go to another Ticats game as long as Bob and Scott are running the show...I'm usually good for 3 or 4 a season and always bring a few friends with me. I went to ZERO games this year and to be honest, didn't really miss it all that much. Simply found other things to spend my entertainment dollar on... I hope all of you that are not renewing your seasons tickets are telling your account reps exactly why!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 16, 2010 at 08:53:19

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 allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 16, 2010 at 08:55:33

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 Stats Prof (anonymous) | Posted November 16, 2010 at 10:38:41

Turbo: "but it 100% anti Rheem from people I have actually talked to in person"

Go to Wikipedia and look up a think called "selection bias" before citing anecdotal information. Is this the same quality of "evidence" you expect from Peak-Oil'ers or the IPCC?

Turbo, you're like Fox news--heavy on opinion but pathetically light on fact. Get a job, or better yet, go to school, but puh-LEASE stop trolling this site. Some people are actually trying to have a discussion, and 100% of the ones I've talked to think you're desperately misinformed.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted November 16, 2010 at 10:58:23

Turbo,

How does the stadium help MIP? Not a lot of innovation goes on there.

For those coming overnight, one hopes that they will stay in Hamilton and downtown (ironically, right around the corner from where the better choice for the stadium would be!). For those coming for a single game, it's in and out. Downtown, they are at least walking by a number of restaurants and other stores.

How is it that WH will only get 10 dates but Longwood will be busy all the time?

I've met a number of people both supporting and opposed to WH. Most of the reasons that they have against WH are the reasons that the 'Cats put out to demonstrate that it's unsupportable. Interestingly enough, most of those issues are worse at Longwood. The only factor that truly makes Longwood superior is that all development around it will funnel money to Bob instead of to a much wider group of people.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted November 16, 2010 at 11:58:44

I am another 3-4 games a year fan who will not be buying anymore Tiger-Cat tickets.

Most people I talk to support Longwood only because Bob Young supports Longwood. They are terrified that the Tiger-Cats will actually go through with their threats of relocation.

Bob claims that there will be 100-150 events a year at the stadium if he manages it. I don't know how he will achieve that without a retractable roof.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 16, 2010 at 13:49:09

Thats my experience. I did not say 100% of the people oppose the Rheem site, only that I've never met one. Its like the election. I didn't meet one person that was going to vote for Fred but obviously there were lots of them, its just they were the minority. My personal guess is that the stadium debate would break out along similar lines where there is no clear winner but if it was a choice of Rheem or anything else the majority would choose anything else even if they couldn't agree on what that was.

Edit

I personally do not support Longwood even though I'm convinced that Bob Young will refuse to invest a nickel at Rheem and will only thake the team there if he is heavily subsidized to do so because he's better off at IWS under the current deal

Comment edited by turbo on 2010-11-16 12:52:36

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 16, 2010 at 13:54:04

Having restaurants and a hotel within walking distance of MIP is a huge benefit and will help attract more tenants to MIP. Rheem will be dark because of NIMBYs just like IWS whereas Longwood will not face the same volume of opposition and will be able to host concerts and other big events that Rheem cannot

Comment edited by turbo on 2010-11-16 12:55:49

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By newbie (anonymous) | Posted November 16, 2010 at 14:16:49

Hi All,
First time poster so please go easy. I see that everyone is quite entrenched in their particular views on this subject and I'm not here to get into arguments or demean anyones particular view. I'm a big Ticat fan myself, but I'll be honest, I'm not overly happy with the way Bob Young or Scott Mitchell have acted in this. I'm also not overly happy with the way city hall has acted either. I do have a question though, has anyone else on here met any of the white star group? A friend introduced me to their designer a while back and I have to say, I was quite impressed with some of the ideas they had. What I found interesting was the thoughtful way they were planning the waterfront to utilize the land there in a very economical way. He explained that this veneitian plate could essentially double the land down there in a way that would put all of the parking underneath while allowing the stadium and all the surrounding developments to go on top. I thought that sounded odd, but he directed me to a piece written by their engineering partners on their website which explained it in pretty good detail. He also talked about how there seems to be a misconception that the towers attached to the stadium were part of the stadium. I guess they would be stand alone projects which were designed to get the private sector to inadvertently become involved in the project. The way he put it was that the private sector has no interest in building a stadium but if you can come up with a design that gives them what they want everyone wins. And selling off the surrounding areas for the developments would pay for the roof on the stadium. I thought it was a pretty good idea. At least better than any other plans I've heard about.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 16, 2010 at 14:57:20

Did the White Star people mention how they were going to finance their plans? Thats the big stumbling block. They really have no funding that I've seen and they have no tenant that requires a 25,000 seat stadium to rent to. It is an impressive piece of engineering but if there is no need to build it or money to build it without the stadium its just a pretty piece of paper

Comment edited by turbo on 2010-11-16 13:59:02

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robbie K (anonymous) | Posted November 16, 2010 at 15:00:36

I will agree with Turbo that the large hotel in the area most certainly does help MIP. (Resturants and the like not so much, and the actual stadium itself not really at all). I am not arguing for or against the stadium at the MIP location, but the Hotel directly near it is not a big issue in my books.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By newbie (anonymous) | Posted November 16, 2010 at 15:22:55

Hi Turbo,
Apparently they have both financing and development partners who have the financial wherewithal to fund it. Its all about having the right lease and management for the facility. I guess they have land down there that they plan on developing into condos and such regardless of the stadium. There's a quote from someone on their website referencing it. But you're right, if the Ticats won't play there, there's not much they can do. My question is why wouldn't they want to manage and play out of a retractable roof stadium instead of a utilitarian stadium?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 16, 2010 at 15:33:43

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 2010-11-16 14:36:46

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By vod_kann (registered) | Posted November 17, 2010 at 07:12:24

"Bob claims that there will be 100-150 events a year at the stadium if he manages it. I don't know how he will achieve that without a retractable roof."

Do we have a source on this? All I have heard him mention was 50 events per year. There's enough rumour and rhetoric going around with this without adding more.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted November 17, 2010 at 13:44:12

Something I found that I thought was interesting and if true, the city as a whole would make the money back on the stadium with hosting a few Grey Cups:

"According to Calgary Tourism estimates, the 2009 Grey Cup generated $61 million in economic spinoff for the city and $81 million for the province."

Of course the numbers might be smaller for Hamilton, I don't know, but still something worth considering for those that say a stadium is a waste of taxpayers money.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By slodrive (registered) | Posted November 17, 2010 at 14:43:24

Just a friendly suggestion. I think the 'comment scoring' should be used to reflect your opinion of what's stated in the post -- not how popular the poster is. I see an awful lot of posts that get greyed out when they really don't have enough substance, and/or are simply innocuous small-talk, to warrant an opinion either way.

Generally, I only use it to show how I feel about how someone has presented their opinion. Even if I don't agree with it, but have found it enlightening, it gets some ups from me. Belligerence and goading, regardless of actual facts, gets dropped. Not sure how it's intended to work.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted November 19, 2010 at 21:06:08

As Hamiltonians wait for the new city council to commence their new term, the outgoing Ottawa city council began their final meeting on the Lansdowne Park/Frank Clair Stadium project today. The meeting is expected to resume on Monday. Here is the link to the article and a site drawing on the Ottawa Citizen website today:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/...

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2010-11-19 20:06:46

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By craigwilson (registered) - website | Posted May 05, 2017 at 17:50:03

Good day everybody am Craig Wilson By name i want to give thanks and a great appreciation to Mr Larry Scott Loan Company for offering me loan for purchasing my house with a low interest rate. I want to give thanks to him for giving me this loan. My friends out there who needs loan for different purposes i advice you contact Mr Larry Scott Loan Company for loan instead of falling in to hands of Scammers online. Am happy today because of Mr Larry Scott Loan Company. So if you want to contact them for a loan you contact them on: (scottlarry918@gmail.com)

Craig Wilson

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