Comment 46187

By cd (anonymous) | Posted August 24, 2010 at 13:14:04

"The East Mountain would bring no spinoff benefits to the surroundings, because the Ticats would keep it all. Hence, the public expenditure on the stadium, parking lot, new highway interchange, road widening, storm water runoff, etc. would amount to a massive public subsidy to support one private corporation with no improvement in property values or tax assessments"

No spinoff benefits? Did not Bob Young say he'd invest in West Harbour revitalization if the stadium were located on another site? Weren't numbers (as per Brad Clark)in the East Hamilton proposal suspiciously duplicated to make it look like a financial drain? Aren't infrastructure changes as likely to be a burden to taxpayers wherever the stadium is built?

East Hamilton is part of the same socio-economic unit as downtown Hamilton.If you turn away from the typical 'wheat fields' perspective that's given by WH advocates & look at what's already there,(industry,roads, parking spaces,future residential development etc etc) you'll see how weak the pro WH position is. But then East Hamilton is only one other option, originally one among ten or so proposed. I'm not advocating for anyone place so much as commenting on how Leftist the pro WH movement is, clearly tied to an anti-corporate, anti-urban sprawl agenda. My fear is that this debate is being politics-driven. I see our region (and not just city) as a social community that's evenly distributed in its functions & financial resources, with no one part entitled to development in the name of a socialist viewpoint.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds