Sports

Merulla: Motion to Dismiss Stadium

By RTH Staff
Published November 03, 2010

Recently re-elected Ward 4 councillor Sam Merulla just announced that he plans to introduce a motion the first regular meeting of the new Council in December to "cease any further action in building a new stadium" for the Pan Am Games and the Hamilton Tiger-Cats.

Merulla has steadfastly opposed Hamilton's plan to build a Pan Am stadium, saying that the process is "fueld by emotion and based on wants rather than needs of our community."

Here is the text of Merulla's motion:

Whereas the problem with the Toronto Pan Am games bid has been fueled by emotion and based on wants rather than needs of our community.

Whereas the original purpose of the Stadium was to create a legacy for amateur sport and provide a new stadium for the Ticats.

Whereas if the Ticats cannot afford the old stadium, how can they afford a new stadium?

Whereas the original purpose of the stadium has changed to simply creating a legacy for the for profit Ticats and a potential professional soccer team.

Whereas a capital deficit of tens of millions of dollars prevails in the construction of a new stadium at Longwood.

Whereas the Council of the City of Hamilton's focus must be governed based on the need to focus on priorities that matter such as Manufacturing Jobs, two billion dollar infrastructure deficit, one hundred and forty six million dollar provincial downloading crisis and twenty percent poverty rate.

Whereas the issue of sustainability for the Hamilton Ticats is only realistically addressed at Ivor Wynne Stadium and the business challenge of the Ticats is to fill the nearly thirty thousand seats available to them at a publicly subsidized Ivor Wynne.

Whereas the issue of a new stadium is not the answer to the Ticats sustainability but rather the issue of sustainability is addressed in the Ticats and the CFL providing a product on the field that creates a demand for tickets. Thereby creating the necessary revenue to become and remain sustainable.

Whereas a renovated Ivor Wynne stadium at a cost of twenty million dollars over twenty years as approved by council in 2007 and a sold out stadium for all Ticat home games is the answer and the most prudent initiative for all stake holders to pursue.

Therefore be it resolved that the City of Hamilton cease any further action in building a new stadium.

The current proposal to build a stadium in the CP Rail Yards at Aberdeen and Longwood is underfunded by some $70 million.

51 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By vod_kann (registered) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 07:59:29

Isn't there a similar motion still on the table from McHattie? Do we vote on it twice?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted November 03, 2010 at 08:08:18

Seems like they will just keep voting on the stadium over and over and get a different answer each time.

I'm with Sam - getting sick of this. It's all too expensive.

Meanwhile Stelco is poised to shut down for good - where's the future fund bailout for them?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Olivia (anonymous) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 08:12:27

Vod Kann Mc Hattie didn't move the motion because he had voted in favour of the Future Fund money for the stadium but voted against West Harbour. So he would have had to reconsider the Future fund monies and there would not be enough votes. Merulla had opposed all aspects of Pan AM so he could not moved a motion last term because you need to be in the affirmative category to move the motion .Merulaa can do it now in a new term cause a reconsideration motion is not needed. So he is actually starting the whole process again from scratch as he attempted at the beginning of the stadium debate last term.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted November 03, 2010 at 10:10:31

Can I pose this question, and please excuse me if I have asked this before.

Can we ever get to a place where poverty is not as desperate, where our infastructure is not so in need, and the focus on new jobs isn't so blatantly apparent? If so, is that 5 years, 10 years and at what risk does postponing this process pose with regards to losing the Cats?

Would the Cats support a decsion by the public against building a stadium, versus just 16 people on council voting against it? If the people said no, would they be more understanding and willing to stick this out? Could we revisit perhaps the Commonwealth games in 5 or 10 years, or is Hamilton at such a low point of financial desparity, that there is no foreseable time in which we feel we will be able to feel good about spending this kind of money on a sports stadium?

Everyone knows in part, I am on Sam's side, although committing to only $20M for Ivor Wynne I would think would seal the Cats fate. Some extra funds would need to be committed to go the restore root. You have to replace the bench seats. Some now, and create a 5 year plan to have all bench seats replaced with folding seats. Brian Timmis needs to come down to showcase the stadium, and create surface parking. Same goes with Scott Park. At least tear it down (which should be it's own budget removed from stadium funding), and start with more surface parking there, and look long term, into possibly making that space a parking garage.

We need to drastically improve the services to Ivor Wynne such as water pressure and electrical as well. This is OUR facility, and we need to help the tennants make it work. Bob Young has put some money into this thing, OUR thing, so I think it's time we put some money into it as well if we are going to give up on the Pan Am process. We have all heard over the course of the summer, that Ivor Wynne is used some 200 times by various groups, so let's take care of it so that it remains a place fans love to be, and a place players like to play.

These few things either buys us more time until we feel our city can afford a new stadium, or it starts a process where we decide Ivor Wynne is our long term facility, and we do something with it. We all work with it, to ensure it is an asset to our city. Not something we sweep under the rug and tell the Cats all the best making it work in a stadium we don't have any desire to create a business plan for.

Ivor Wynne would need a management committee made up of citizens, who use creative brainstorming to make this place work like it has never worked before. Things like this map I started, grants for business startups along King or Barton in the stadium distruct to turn this part of our city around. I get that downtowns are the lifeline of a city, but why not move east for a little while and work at creating something special in a different part of the city. If crime rates are so high around here, let's fix that. You have to get downtown somehow, and Barton is a major cross city route. It has some nice spots, and the city already tried to beautify the areas between Wentworth and Victoria with parking medians and centre medians with flowers and such. That could be built upon, and even duplicated around the stadium. The Stadium Mall has even undergone a nice clean-up, including the new Fresch Co grocery stores wich have replaced Price Choppers. They have transformed into nice little grocers.

The proximately of Ivor Wynne to major Gage Park festivals or the Ottawa Street shopping district, and even the Centre and all the parking available for things like Park and Ride. I repeat myself many times in this message but the bottom line is, a $20M plan isn't enough. We need a little more funding than that, and some citizen man-power who have the passion, drive, to do whatever it takes to finally make Ivor Wynne Stadium work.

5 years. Extend her life by 5 years bare minium, and let's see what we might be able to do.

And hey, build a Tiger-Town store along the Cannon side of IWS like places like Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, MA. I guarantee you it will make more money at IW than downtown. Once again, try some temporary structure like a relocatable building from NRB in Grimsby, and see how sales do over a 1 or 2 year period, before building a permanent structure. I worked for NRB back in the day, and we did a project in Vaugahn, at a high school that looked like a museum that had reached it's capacity, and encorporated portables into the the school, piecing around 6 or 7 portables together, and you could hardly tell they were not part of the original structure when we were done. It would probably be a fairly inexpensive thing to try out.

I wish schoools around here would do something like this, instead of plopping portables all over the school grounds. It looks so cheap. Even better, stop building new schools without properly looking into long term needs. Look at the fairly new Lawfield School; already housing portables on it's grounds. Sad.

But that is a whole new can of worms.

Comment edited by lawrence on 2010-11-03 09:16:29

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By eyes hurt (anonymous) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 11:18:07

lawrence,

TLDR

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted November 03, 2010 at 11:28:24

You think working in the cable industry that I would know all acronyms out there, but then another one pops up. Not related to cable, but another example of what lies ahead for a cryptic future for our children.

If the issue mattered to you, perhaps you would have at least passed through it. IMHO anyway. ;)

Having said that, I have been known to be a little long-winded so point open-mindedly taken. I should just write a blog post in response instead of long-winded replies. :)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted November 03, 2010 at 11:33:46

tl;dr can actually be a useful writing tool. If you find yourself writing a long draft, summarize it in a sentence or two - the tl;dr summary - and put that at the top of the piece. Refining the message you're trying to get across helps you in turn to figure out which parts you can cut out.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted November 03, 2010 at 11:38:44

My latest submission to you is a prime example Ryan. :) Thanks for the tip.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 12:32:37

Waste of time an Merulla's part. This isn't news, its ancient history. We all have known from the outset what his position is

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Malex (anonymous) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 12:42:08

You make some valid points, Lawrence...but opining that the Stadium Mall has undergone a "nice clean up" isn't one of them. Sorry mate, but they need to tear it down and start again. Yes, Freshco is an improvement over the Price Chopper, but the rest of it is an eyesore and adds nothing to the pre or post game experience, unless you count the dudes counting their nickels to buy a king can of Steeler...tear it down, put in a Tiger Town, sports bar and a restaurant or two, and then perhaps you would pull in fans on game day...otherwise, it's just a dodgy strip mall in a dodgy part of town...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted November 03, 2010 at 12:49:54

True Malex. It is still a strip mall. By the brick work behind the siding, it too looks like it was built for the 1930 British Empire games. I imagine the LCBO will be done anyway, once the one at the Centre is built?

Having a supermarket close by I would think is a benefit to the tailgaters? Drop by before hand to pick up some supplies, and Scott Park is just up the street a bit. Just wondering what benefit it has where it is with regards to the stadium. The parking lot is a pain in the you know what to navigate through. I'll add that to your arguments against the strip mall for sure.

I certainly agree with some sports bars and more eateries. Either way the Tiger-Town store would seemingly be better served in my opinion, closer to the stadium, but I would like to see it at it. I bet it would be packed before and after games and during highschool football events and such. Not to mention how many fans live in the area.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ty Webb (anonymous) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 13:14:07

Finally an idea that makes sense. The Pan Ams are a non-starter. Who really cares, they are on par with the Commonwealth Games which I wouldn't have even heard of if not for the disaster in Delhi. The Ticats are worth the $20 million or so needed to fix Ivor Wynne, nothing more. Use the future fund money downtown and west harbour and let BY find his own money if he must have a new stadium.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By slodrive (registered) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 13:27:21

I struggle to see how Merulla's motion isn't a motion to sweep problems under the rug and deal with them 'later'. I would also be interested to see if Sam paid for his house in cash, all up front. To me, the can-we-afford-not-to seems stronger than the can-we-afford-to. Does he forsee another opportunity in the next 10 to 15 years where $115m of public money will be on the table? Money that can be used to showcase Hamilton as a visually appealing and city-on-the-rebound centre? Or, are we comfortable with passing up opportunities to sink more money into outdated dilapidated structures that will only need to be addressed again at the next election.

This is a bigger city marketing initiative than people are giving credit. Based on some of the numbers being shilled by the previous city administration, this city is doing pretty well despite the economic downturn of the past few years. Could it not be extrapolated that bluer skies lie ahead? Would one not think that an investment in our city's stadium, at this time, be a wise investment given the timing and money available?

Build the best sidewalks in the industrial world. Light them and even heat them if you want. They won't have 850,000 people looking at them for 3 hours 10 times a year.

Comment edited by slodrive on 2010-11-03 12:29:21

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamLover (anonymous) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 13:30:26

@Malex, @Lawrence, I like the ideas but the fact is the area is a scary dead zone for 354 days of the year. I don't think you can sustain a decent restaurant in an area of tiny incomes and high crime.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted November 03, 2010 at 13:41:35

There is certainly some merit to what you are saying HamLover, but see a comment by user Andrea the other day, and you will realize it isn't a low-income area at all. It's a huge mix. High crime yes, but something has to be done to address this. Perhaps restoring IW isn't it, but adding a few more houses for the sake of a few extra tax dollars isn't it either.

Forget looking for more tax revenue. Stop the frivolous spending so that we have to keep throwing away opportunities because we are spending too much. There are certainly a lot of 'nice to have' projects happening around Hamilton. Use that money to fix a few big things, instead of a hundred little things that don't need fixed.

First east end project: Finally tear down Scott Park. The residents in that area deserve to be rid of that vacant, asbestos-filled eye-sore. But don't do anything with the land, until we know where we stand with the stadium. A pile of graded dirt will be 100-times better in the interim.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MattM (registered) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 14:03:00

Scott Park is not vacant. It is owned by someone who intends to or already is using it as a school, along the lines of Columbia Intl. College in the west end.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 14:16:34

Scott Park is vacant for all intents and purposes. It may be used but its so highly underutilized its tantamount to vacant. Tearing it down would be the best thing that could be done with the site for the neighbourhood. I have to look at it daily. Yikes

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted November 03, 2010 at 14:45:17

My big problem with the talk of IW renovation is that I think we might be cheaping out on it.

We're talking about spending over a hundred million dollars on building a new stadium, but when we talk about renovating IW we put forth only 20 million. Imagine the kind of work that could be done on IW, a Scott Park parking complex, and the surrounding blocks with the kind of budget people were slinging around for the WH or Longwood locations?

edit: isn't Scott Park being used as an adult ed school? Either way, hardly full utilization of the school, much less the massive plot of land it sits on. Also, may I remind you that our new Mayor wanted to knock down Sir John. A (a highschool in far better repair and actively used as a highschool) to build a new stadium?

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2010-11-03 13:47:36

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 15:12:17

It would probably be cheaper to tear down IWS and start fresh to be quite honest. I love the idea of making a comprehensive sports complex on that site but frankly without the Tigercats there's no point in it there either

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted November 03, 2010 at 15:20:44

Anyone have any up-tp-date information on Scott Park? The last I heard, it was a 'sick school', asbestos being the culprit, hence its closing. How is it then, that there's someone operating any kind of schooling within its walls?

Funny; Hamilton lets some of its landmark buildings fall into disrepair (The Century, The Tivoli) and also has this massive school just sitting there...this enormous mystery. (How long has it been sitting there now, anyway?)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 15:26:34

It closed in 2001.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted November 03, 2010 at 15:36:36

2004

I wonder if the city approached the Tiger-Cats back then under new ownership and direction from Bob Young, to see if they were interested in the site for parking space? Curious.Seeing as though parking is apparently an issue, you'd think a light bulb might have flashed over their heads?

Comment edited by lawrence on 2010-11-03 14:38:06

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 15:59:02

Thanks, but I can read. 2004 is the date of that City Staff report, the school closed in 2001. http://www.hwdsb.on.ca/media/news/detail...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted November 03, 2010 at 16:33:11

Sorry Andrea. I was not trying to correct you. I couldn't get the link to appear on it's own without adding text to it, so I just typed 2004. Great find on your part. I could not find any mention of re-zoning in a quick Google search. Only found 1053-1055 Barton St E.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted November 03, 2010 at 16:56:25

I've long believed that were they to utilize the IWS/Scott Park 'superproperty', they should put the stadium where the school currently is, reversing everything. Closer to transit, etc. (The pool would have to be relocated, yes. Hardly an insurmountable hurdle.)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 18:21:39

The building that once housed Scott Park Secondary School was purchased by a Chinese businessman named Edward Gong and is now known as National Art College of Canada. He has spent about $1 Million on interior renovations to the first three floors of the five floor building. The school has received provincial accreditation to offer courses to approximately 100 Grade 11 and 12 students, mostly from China. Here is a link to the relevant Hamilton Spectator article by Danielle Wong: http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl...

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2010-11-03 17:25:00

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 18:24:16

Scoot Park is (or going to be) the National Art College of Canada

http://www.ysys.ca/main.asp?mp_id=5161&lg_id=1&s_id=10029

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted November 03, 2010 at 18:55:44

So I'm just trying to understand here...

The school had been closed simply because it was deemed surplus to the needs of the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board?

Had the demographics of the area changed that much? (I was overseas at the time so was out of the loop.)

Comment edited by mystoneycreek on 2010-11-03 17:56:31

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 19:14:59

@ Lawrence - my memory gets worse with age, but I was certain it wasn't only 6 years since the school closed its doors. :-)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By vod_kann (registered) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 19:34:34

I agree with a lot of people here that a 20 million over 2 year plan solves nothing- all it does is maintain the status quo- and most can agree that the status quo work for neither the city nor the ticats.

We either need to:

-bite the bullet and pay for the new full stadium

-do a full renovation on Ivor Wynne like some have suggested here. Drop the full 45 mil from the future fund plus any other sources.

-Do not spend one more cent on Ivor Wynne or the Cats. Give the Cats Carte Blanche to move wherever they wish

Dropping 20mil on Ivor wynne, you might as well flush that money down the toilet.

PS

Thanks to Olivia for the Civics explanation!

Comment edited by vod_kann on 2010-11-03 18:41:52

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted November 03, 2010 at 20:45:59

Closing schools in the inner-city, building new ones on the fringe. Closing stores in the city, building new ones on the fringe. Closing movie theatres, restaurants, factories and offices in the inner-city, building new ones on the fringe. Closing stadiums in the inner-city...

Gee...I wonder how the area became known for "low incomes and high crime rates". I doubt they could do it any worse with a few fully-loaded bombing runs with the Lancaster, even if they tried.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 22:14:25

Scott Park was actually condemned because of asbestos. It was decided to abandon it rather than repair it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MAB (registered) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 22:33:37

Now Sam is making sense and putting the needs of our community as a whole - first.

The Hamilton TiCats belong to Hamilton, in name, in history. They are not going

anywhere, never were.

Bob is stuck with us-too work out the logistics. Football is no longer the only game

in town, as it once was back in the 60's and 70's. Ivor Wynn is adequate in size and

with a little TLC, has and will hold a Grey Cup. Bob can now focus on building

the Soccor Rights I am told he owns and build on that, in the West Harbour..

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 22:37:54

The only person that matters has said IWS will never host another Grey Cup

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By bobster (registered) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 22:48:01

question for Olivia - I was unaware there are these rules about how you can raise motions. Can you give me more information? Or link me to where you find these rules?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Olivia (anonymous) | Posted November 03, 2010 at 23:36:39

Bobster I'm in second year poli sci major. If you call the city they will provide info or search web ontario municipal council procedures/ rules of order.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted November 04, 2010 at 05:00:35

Scott Park was actually condemned because of asbestos. It was decided to abandon it rather than repair it.

Then I'm very curious as to how there's now a flourishing school in there.

And how those who made the decision to 'abandon it' feel about its current function, all things considered.

Anyone have any additional insight into this?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted November 04, 2010 at 08:13:27

IWS will never host another Grey Cup

Not if how the Ti-Cats are playing has anything to do with it anyway.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted November 04, 2010 at 09:44:40

An inspection in 1989 showed unsafe levels of asbestos: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...

If it was condemned, I believe it would have been demolished already. No?
Why condemn a building and leave it standing for an additional 9 years. Many schools have been retrofitted due to asbestos. My understanding was that it was considered a 'surplus property' due to declining enrollment. Area students were easily re-routed to Delta (to the East) or Sir John A (to the West).

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted November 04, 2010 at 09:47:25

So it was deemed unsafe...used for an additional decade...then closed...then labeled 'surplus'...then picked up for a song by an entrepreneur.

Thanks for helping to clear things up, Andrea.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Paul (registered) | Posted November 04, 2010 at 13:19:25

To the point of why not spend the kind of money needed for a new stadium on IW is simple. We don't have it! we still do not have the money we need to build a new one and with all our other growing costs cannot really afford anything so a lesser investment is better than looking to put money we do not have and cannot afford into such a project.

Dont forget we have promised to rip up our farmlands for warehouses so we need to service that, pay for flooding expressways, fix infrastructure, clean up the West Harbour lands so they can sit and rot for another decade or more, invest in housing to get people in need off the waiting lists, invest in our ailing transit that so many terms of government have left underfunded and therefore our city underserviced, we need to invest in gaining fairwage sustainable jobs IN the city rather than sprawling out of it, we have to serive the new meadowlands housing nightmare and similar pointless projects, prepare for the fallout from US Steel, etc.... we have much to deal with that are so much more important than a stadium!

I hope Marulla wins this one.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By slodrive (registered) | Posted November 04, 2010 at 15:51:40

@Paul

Not to equate stadiums with investing, but merely looking to question your opinion. I invested (say) $25k when the market was down. Did I have $25k to invest? Hell no? I'm wearing a shirt that's 8 years old and driving an 11 year old car. But, it made sense. I borrowed at a dirt cheap rate and made 18%. About 13 points more than I borrowed at. (Don't quote me on the percentages...and definitely not the number. Just making a point.)

I agree that we shouldn't be wasting public money frivolously. But, we shouldn't be stupid either. Opportunity knocks but once.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted November 04, 2010 at 16:42:52

slodrive, good point, but, we must be sure of the distinction between an investment and an expenditure.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jorge (anonymous) | Posted November 04, 2010 at 19:23:27

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 04, 2010 at 22:59:01

Asbestos-laden schools for inner city children. Solution? Close 'em. That'll drive innovation and economic development for decades to come.

If only we had a new stadium...that would fix it! Umm...parking....visibility...uhh...like...hipsters and stuff.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted November 04, 2010 at 23:38:22

It looks as though Winnipeg also has a funding shortfall for its proposed new stadium: http://tsn.ca/cfl/story/?id=339932

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted November 05, 2010 at 21:13:21

According to this article titled “City spending $25,000 on stadium lobbyists” by Paul Morse on the Hamilton Spectator website tonight, the Tiger-Cats will unveil at a Hamilton Chamber of Commerce meeting next week their plans for a hotel and conference centre at the proposed CPR stadium site.

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

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2010-11-05 20:22:12

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By people's voice (anonymous) | Posted November 09, 2010 at 15:43:59

I haven't had the time to follow what was happening with the new stadium and the Ti-cats, but I agree with article, that we need to do what is right for the city, not what is right for the ticats, sure we may loose the team, but if they aren't bringing in the crowd to see them then who really cares? if we can build up our city we can try and grab another team or whatever happends to bring a team or create a team for the city. We need to worry about more important things such as creating more jobs for people who have nothing, and people who constantly have to commute to another city everyday to work for almost nothing like myself. the bid for the stadium was definitely fueled by emotion, emotion that says we are desperate and want to come out on top over other surrounding cities.. to me I agree we should strive to be better, but we should also strive to be realistic and work with what we have, and take care of our own. the government treats us as the child who's mother hides him in his room when her friends are over because the kid is embarrassing to have around, and im really sick of it. I love Hamilton, and i want to see us come out healthy, not in debt. so yes I agree with Marulla he seems to be the only one making sense so far that I know of.

Anyways, that's my two cents on this. if you disagree with what I say then look downtown on king street and notice all the people milling around not working and are homeless.. that should bring the pro stadium people back to reality.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted November 10, 2010 at 08:13:15

Here is the link to an article by Wade Hemsworth and John Kernaghan in today's Hamilton Spectator reporting that Bob Young's plans for the proposed CPR stadium site include an eight storey hotel with about 150 rooms with the possibility of twinning the tower in the future, a conference centre, a possible block of townhouses, some sports-themed restaurants and a public square leading to the stadium, all constructed in a "village-style arrangement, including connections between existing trails and railway beds now in use at the site...". This portion of the project will be developed by Young with private partners.

Ward 1 councillor Brian McHattie believes that Young's announced plans are premature because more money still needs to be found to build the stadium, the key development piece.

http://www.thespec.com/sports/ticats/art...

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2010-11-10 07:13:51

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MattM (registered) | Posted November 10, 2010 at 09:34:59

Honestly I think this is the best thing to come from the Ti-Cats yet. It's far from perfect but it's much better. I am still unhappy about the funding situation and the location but this new plan could work. A hotel would compliment the Innovation Park really well. I'm glad they're also aiming to build up, not out.

Have to say that's the most uninspired stadium design I have ever seen. Come on Bob. Protect your investment and give the team something to be proud of.

Comment edited by MattM on 2010-11-10 08:36:06

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Waterboy (anonymous) | Posted November 25, 2010 at 19:23:57

Locations? Hotel? Jesusss, Wade! Did you personally hear that articulated to you with conviction? No wonder you wrote it down.

After two weeks of calm we may have just heard Mayor Bob Bratinna concede the finality of a boat quietly slipping out into the lake at sunset. (Nov25, 2010)

To go out on a short limb here, as Merulla and others have prognosticated before, thats a wrap. Hamilton has just put out `feelers' for someone else to take up the goal for a stadium - rather, a soccer field and bleachers. The crown jewel of any games, an athletic stadium, has gone to York University. Someone else can run with the ball.

Bob Bratinna (Hamilton Mayor) has just commented and referenced other municipalities in a telephone call with CHCH Tv with no real positive message that a Hamilton project will materialize.

I guess we have begun the process of bowing out.

Lets thank the TiCats Bob Young for putting us on the road to dismantling the Pan Am stadium for athletics, confounding any notion of a new playground for the ticats and any other user group like a new soccer field, and no legacy for sport what so ever for Hamilton.

One the other hand TiCats owner Bob Young may have saved the city of Hamilton tens of millions of dollars.

For god sake I hope the cycling community stays under the political wire. They can attract and acomplish so much more for a fraction of the cost.





No sport legacy facility of any sort for Hamilton.

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