Comment 36555

By Keith Mann (registered) - website | Posted December 24, 2009 at 09:50:36

The comment by "Balance" (above) seems to be getting moderated down a bit more heavily than I think it deserves, but in this particular case I do disagree with the principle of non-interference.

The particular chunk of Hamilton destined for MIP and related usage is what remains of the decaying corpse of an industrial zone that has been otherwise consumed and transformed by the economically-healthier residential and commercial activity surrounding it. This brownfield reamins untransformed not so much because of its fundamental, locational undesirability but rather because the transportation infrastructure surrounding it is based on rail rather than road.

In this city and this economy, it is unlikely that a desirable private initiative would have arisen to complete such an extensive transformation. The monetary energy-well could not be overcome without the catalyst of public investment. The city stands to profit monetarily from the resale and subsequent tax revenues; its residents -- especially those living in the affected area -- stand to profit from a vast improvement in the quality of the neighborhood. Council has my support on this one.

[Comment edited by Keith Mann on 2009-12-24 08:51:43]

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds