Comment 38677

By Vod K (anonymous) | Posted March 11, 2010 at 15:47:00

"We have to ask "would we be willing to have a higher tax bill to keep the harbour location".

Two of the sites suggested by this anonymous group would also need remediation, so we would be on the hook anyway, but with no economic spin off benefits for anyone but this small group."


As I said, I don't know the answer. I don't mind the bigger bill but others may not. I don't see how any of the alternatives mentioned are any better but just to play devil's advocate:

-If we don't get private funding and we have a 15,000 seat stadium that the Cats don't use, it defeats the main purpose of building it.

-To build anything in the West Harbour would require remediation so its not like we will get out of that bill. Who says that we can't build something else there to link the waterfront to downtown.

In the end I am against the West Harbour site because it has the potential weather wise nasty in October and November for Cats (Think Exhibition Stadium or old CLeveland municipal stadium). As I said nobody is taking into account the football watching experience.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds