Comment 53734

By Policy Guy (anonymous) | Posted December 23, 2010 at 15:39:37

SayItAin'tSo - Trey's points have already been shot down - see the comments following his essay "The Case for Confederation Park". Not only were they shot down in this forum, they were shot down by the council who have been consistent in their refusal to cave into extortion. The Future Fund money is our money - is does not belong to the Tiger-Cats, and simply giving them anything they want does not guarrantee they will stay for any period of time anyway - taking their "brand" with them - which would leave us with a stadium without a tenant (read TENANT), and the permanent loss of lands that were created as park land for the benefit of all, not just a pro sports team.

I appreciate that Trey has a right to his opinions and it could certainly be said that his input into the debate is part and parcel of how this issue has engendered badly engagement in the status, politics, and outcomes of our city, but in the meantime how about considering another brand - for Hamilton to be known simply as the home of a football team does not say much about the variety of skills, talents, education levels and productivity of our labour force, our investment potential, our entrepreneurialship, our creativity, or our business acumen - but if we simply hand over the money and the keys to the Tiger-cats we might become known as the city that can be fleeced.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds