Comment 43969

By goin'downtown (registered) | Posted July 23, 2010 at 23:15:31

To me, the Province offering money for a project build, and then out-of-the-blue lining up investors and political bureaucrats to encourage/force the City to buy the Province's land for said project is pretty dicey. So if Tony Valeri or Angelo Paletta told the City that he's going to donate $5,000,000 towards the building of a medium-sized, much-needed music venue - but the City has to build it on land that they buy from Valeri/Paletta - how is that any different from what the Province is doing? Same players; they just don't dress as well :).

Of course Young's only interest is the incredible (short-term) spike in revenues. Why would it be anything else? I'm sure he's fed up with phootball philanthropy. (Although - there must be some reason he keeps coming back for more...only his hairdresser - no, accountant - really knows). He'll recoup some (or all) of his losses, then sell. And then we're back at Dan Jelly's scenario, which sounds hauntingly and psychically accurate.

Storm Cunningham's article was the most objective and astute that I've seen, but with recent big box developments, the RHV debacle and aerotropolis looming - I'm not confident that his common sense objectivity can make any changes at this point.

So, after weeks of digesting some brilliant opinions and research and articles on RTH, The Hamiltonian, The Spec, Hall Marks, etc. - where vested interests (whether they be personal financial gain or personal idealism) seem to get everyone all heated up - and where I haven't even seen a trace of a financial forecast for either location (what goes on when Ticats aren't playing? Where are the specific infrastructure costs?) - and despite being a staunch believer in the WH location - I'm joining McCarthy. I'd rather save the tax payers' dollars than waste it on an ill-conceived, inappropriate investment. Let the Ticats stay where they are (no one was threatening to leave before all this hullaballoo). And I am a Ticat fan; I love that they are a part of our identity. I wonder what happens to Ivor Wynne if a new stadium gets built? Does it just get leveled?

As for McCormick-Rankin’s contribution via more tax payers’ dollars, undoubtedly they are linked financially - although the links would be buried beneath layers of numbered companies and the like - to the ORC, developers, contractors, et al. Don't need a magic 8-ball to figure out what their conclusions are going to be - infrastructure costs will appear attractively low to what they actually will be, and potential traffic and attendees will be inflated. Wonder if that initial analysis will ever be looked at again, if the EM location is a go-ahead.

Let's save the money for a different downtown catalyst - like mixing a small Harbourfront stadium with a creative arts-ish venture (since it doesn't look like the Creative Catalyst is going to save the Connaught, anyway) - and have a beautiful, beneficial, community Arts & Entertainment Stadium/Complex at the West Harbourfront. And do some way over-due improvements on Ivor Wynne. Where will the money for those projects come from? From the money saved in not spending $30-50 million on infrastructure for the EM location.

Hopefully somewhere along the way the general public, including business people, will learn a few things about the role a vibrant downtown plays, and we won’t have so much “us against them”-ism.

Like Councillor McHattie said of an earlier misguided development ""Hamilton has a history of taking what we can get instead of following what good planning says we need."

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools