Comment 30319

By jason (registered) | Posted April 21, 2009 at 15:20:45

FYI, here is my original comment for those who are choosing to ignore it:

folks, say what you want, and perhaps its just horrible optics on the part of HPL with the timing of both press releases, but I think Rusty nailed it with his description of the poorer parts of Hamilton.

I'm not opposed in any way to a new library being built at this site. The more libraries the better in the city. And my comments have zero to do with 'the Mountain'. My comments are directed at the lousy planning policies by our city over the past 30 years. Constant threat and some actual school closures in the urban parts of the city so we can build new ones in the sprawl areas. If sprawl is such a great development model as some suggest, why can't it cover the cost of new rec facilities on it's own? Why must the entire sprawl development model be subsidized by the existing, poorer parts of any given city? I'd love a straight answer from someone on that. Not more rhetoric or anti-RTH stuff. Some locals aren't used to being asked tough questions like this because our brains have been dulled by the local 'big' media.

Sprawl is the most heavily subsidized sector in the history of western civilization. And it continues to be.

I have no problem with the fireplace or the nice flooring. Central will have the same thing when it re-opens. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we build crap. Lord knows we do that enough in this city. Why couldn't Terryberry be closed down in order to build this new library? Why Picton? As mentioned in the CATCH article, Picton was originally slated to be part of the new rec centre being built in the North End. Almost identical to what is happening at Turner Park. Why did one part of the city see that plan fulfilled and the other part of the city see that plan scrapped?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds