Well, that didn't take long.
The Spectator's Emma Reilly has all the ugly details on today's Fenn Report meeting in a liveblog, now concluded, that traces Council's rapid capitulation to the smell of quick cash.
Some, ugh, 'highlights' of the meeting:
11:55 - Sam Merulla likes east mountain. "We have an opportunity here that is going to mitigate the financial impact," he said. "I just wish that we would have done this a year and a half ago - but better late than never."
It will mitigate some of the up front financial impact, but negate all the potential for stadium-oriented development down the road.
11:57 - Brad Clark wants an on/off ramp leading from the east mountain stadium to the Red Hill expressway.
Not to mention road widening and upgraded infrastructure - millions of dollars in additional costs that will ultimately be borne by the taxpayers, not by the Ticats. Millions of dollars that might otherwise have remediated an industrial brownfield nestled into a city neighbourhood with great potential.
Also, so much for "mitigating the financial impact".
12:10 - Several councillors have already hinted that the east mountain is the "ultimate destination." Both Tom Jackson and Bernie Morelli have asked why council is still even considering west harbour.
How about: city building, downtown redevelopment, public benefits? You know - the city's chief objectives?
12:27 - Okay. They mayor's finished speaking, Mitchell's back in the room. Eisenberger said he doesn't want to abandon the idea of west harbour, but he's willing to move forward with the consideration of the two sites. "I am not prepared to throw (west harbour) over the side of the boat," Eisenberger said.
Translation: I am prepared to throw West Harbour over the side of the boat, but one must keep up appearances.
12:37 - Brian McHattie just spoke out about how the tides seem to be turning away from west harbour. "I don't think that's progressive thinking," he said. "I'll be so bold, and no particular offence meant, but to me, this is all about private interest trumpting public interest."
Not that it will make any difference in a city where public money was born to flow into private interest.
McHattie also wants to look at another source of funding for the city's contribution, as the Future Fund was supposed to be for legacy projects. He argues the city shouldn't spend the last $60 million of that fund on something that doesn't fit that mandate.
A Future Fund implies a future. This Council appears incapable of seeing their decisions in terms of how they will shape the city's future.
You must be logged in to comment.