Comment 46770

By cd (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 20:20:44

"MIP, in contrast, "does not need that kind of leverage. We've got it already."

Building a stadium on lands earmarked for new-economy businesses would actually "detract from the city's economic agenda" in the MIP by crowding out more valuable spinoff investments."

Spurious reasoning here. What do we mean by "spinoff investments" anyways? How are spinoffs from a stadium different from those that MIP is expected to generate? A spinoff benefit is a spinoff benefit, whatever the source. What kind of elitist thinking is this that wants "ethereal" hi-tech lands to be kept qualitatively distinct from a site whose only putative value lies in bulldozer development? And why (or how) do a stadium and MIP, located in the same vicinity, necessarily cancel each other out as business investment sites. It seems that Chamberlain may be as glib andself-serving as Young supposedly is.

And the "team" and "business" distinction with regards to the Ticats is even more bogus than that between MIP and Pan Am stadium as "city-building legacy" ventures. The worst type of reasoning is the either-or one: "either you're for us or you're against us". Again, why not both "team" (legacy site) and "business" (investment)?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds