Sports

Young: It's East Mountain Vs. No Stadium

By RTH Staff
Published July 19, 2010

Hamilton Tiger-Cats owner Bob Young argues that Hamilton's choice of a Pan Am stadium is not between the East Mountain location and the West Harbour location, but between the East Mountain location and no stadium at all.

In an email sent yesterday, Young stated:

[T]he risk your campaign to improve Hamilton is taking in lobbying for the West Harbour is that you will win. If you win you will commit Council to a path that will ensure nothing gets built anywhere in Hamilton for the Pan Am games.

Young's argument is that his team's analysis concludes there is no way for the Ticats to run a successful business at a West Harbour stadium. Because the Province has clearly stated it will only fund a Pan Am stadium with an identified legacy use - i.e. the home of the Ticats - the team's refusal to commit to the West Harbour means the Province will opt to locate the Pan Am stadium elsewhere.

Young notes that the city has calculated it can only build a 15,000 seat stadium if private sector co-investors do not add to the Future Fund and Pan Am money. He adds, "the Tiger-Cats cannot play in a 15,000 seat stadium in the West Harbour. Without the Tiger-Cats, there is no legacy use for a 15,000 seat stadium at this location."

Young maintains that the team "will be able to attract many more events to Hamilton than just Ticat games" at the East Mountain location, thus providing a viable legacy use to satisfy the Province.

In rejecting the West Harbour, Young reiterated, "That does not mean there may not be downtown locations that do work for a stadium, but we have not been offered any."

He suggests that West Harbour supporters would be better off "lobbying for some third location that will work for a large audience event business, because a stadium without a tenant is a terrible investment of City resources."

Request for Ticats Revenue Analysis

RTH requested to see the team's business cost and revenue analysis of the two proposed locations so that Hamiltonians can better understand why the Ticats management does not believe the West Harbour is a viable location. Recent suggestions emerging from the Our City, Our Future campaign suggest some exciting possibilities for creative revenue generation there.

Young replied that the Ticats and the developers they have spoken with "have studied this for months now and we cannot find any 'exciting opportunities for creating revenue'" at the West Harbour location.

He added that the Ticats "will make public in the next week or so a more detailed breakdown of the problems in the West Harbour that the experts have been pointing out to the City staff behind closed doors since last November."

42 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted July 19, 2010 at 09:59:31

just trust our secret numbers and do what we say. no need for the public to know the truth?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 10:10:58

Time to do the unthinkable and switch to the double blue.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By no (registered) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 10:17:41

My concern with building the stadium on the east mountain site is that, once again, it will detract attention from the downtown area. My understanding was that that was the exact reason for placing the stadium on the West Harbour site . . . to attract people downtown where we need the boost. Putting malls and shopping up on the mountain has already caused harm to the downtown core (case in point, Jackson Square and its lack of attracting customers) so putting the stadium up there is just going to put the last nail in the coffin for any hope of bringing business and people to the downtown area and the "real" Hamilton will truly die.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MarkWhittle (registered) - website | Posted July 19, 2010 at 10:35:47

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pigskin PPP (anonymous) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 10:38:17

*In rejecting the West Harbour, Young reiterated, "That does not mean there may not be downtown locations that do work for a stadium, but we have not been offered any."

He suggests that West Harbour supporters would be better off "lobbying for some third location that will work for a large audience event business, because a stadium without a tenant is a terrible investment of City resources."*

Such as IWS? Isn't most cost-effective solution not moving at all?


*He added that the Ticats "will make public in the next week or so a more detailed breakdown of the problems in the West Harbour that the experts have been pointing out to the City staff behind closed doors since last November."*

So we can expect big headlines in early August, a mere nine months after the issues came to light and days before the Aug 10 deadline. The playbook is becoming familiar.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 10:42:06

@MarkWhittle Support a position for pay or financial interest, lobbyist. Support a position because you believe it's best for the city, citizen. See the difference?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ancopa (registered) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 10:43:42

Personally I'd rather see no stadium over an East Mountain stadium. Better to save our cash for something that actually benefits the city in the future than to piss it away on an nonviable stadium.

Lets just hold on to the cash for now.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 10:58:01

He doesn't even have enough money on the table to pay for the parking lot, but he's holding a gun to our heads. Blows my mind.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted July 19, 2010 at 10:58:54

What about Bratina's preferred locations? One was the land area east of John Street between King William and Wilson - that's in the middle of Hamilton's ocean of surface-level parking.

I think Young takes too much of the blame on this. The more I learn about the West Harbour, the more I realize that Young is correct about one thing - it's a bad location for a stadium.

This does not mean that stoney creek is better, though.

It's obvious what happened - the City went through a bunch of locations, and excitement of the glamorous idea of a harbourfront stadium that gives them an opportunity to clean up a particularly nasty brownfield got them carried away, leading them to ignore the flaws.

These flaws are dealbrakers for Young's already expensive team. But every other location is now off the table. So he makes up his dream location - the one that doesn't really off the city anything, but is the absolute best thing for him, and puts enough money to get council onboard. After all, if council is already committed to a bad location, why bother with compromise?

The stadium should be in the city... but West Harbour isn't it.

This city has oceans of surface-level parking, dead buildings, and empty warehouses. There are available locations that have none of the flaws of the WH and the EM. But the political will to find them is long gone.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2010-07-19 10:11:35

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By arienc (registered) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 11:11:22

"the team's refusal to commit to the West Harbour means the Province will opt to locate the Pan Am stadium elsewhere."

So the city gets bullied out of the money that has been dedicated to renewing the downtown and ends up wasting it on the East Mountain, plus spending the extra $40 million or so in land, roadway + parking costs it entails.

Or the city gets bullied out of the Pan Am games entirely.

Hamilton's suffered enough. Time to flex our muscles and stand up to those who would continue to kick sand in our faces.

It may be better in the long run if the city or some other third party offered to buy the football team from Mr. Young.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By bob lee (anonymous) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 11:21:52

"the Province has clearly stated it will only fund a Pan Am stadium with an identified legacy use"

where? When?

Bob I agree a third location would have been better, had you brought it forward a year ago, 6 months ago, or even during Fenn's negotiations. Is Fenn the man responsible for this ridiculous East Mountain site? If so his credibility should suffer. There's no more time!! You and Bratina can run off all you want about hypothetical better sites, but August 12 is fast approaching, and now we're stuck between two crappy sites. The only other option you might have might be the best: stay at Ivor Wynne.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 11:38:17

what I find interesting is Mr. Youngs suggestion that there is a Downtown site that could work. Could that be the John A. MacDonald school site? Now before everyone gets bent out of shape, think about it. It's 400 metres from the proposed site with an elevated view of the harbour. It's surrounded by two inner-city expressways (Cannon and Wilson) as well as numerous other built roadways. Close to thousands of existing parking spaces, a short distance between two GO stations and central to almost every bus route in the system and of course two future LRT lines... Surrounded by acres of vacant or under utilized property. This location would most likely appeal to 'spin-off' development (Hall of Fame, Sports Medicine, Copp's renovation, "Setting Sail', Hotels etc.) more than either of the present proposed sites. So before this whole thing gets 'blown-up,' the powers that be need to ask the tough questions, drop the posturing, and for once do something that will inspire the citizens of this 'Great City,' instead of annoying them.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JJ (registered) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 11:40:11

I've been in favour of finding an alternate downtown location all along. Then we wouldn't be stuck with an east mountain "compromise" site that is no compromise at all.
Like the "ocean of surface-level parking" that was mentioned in an earlier comment. Or where Sir John A. MacDonald school is, assuming it could fit there (might have to re-route York and/or Cannon a bit). They could rebuild the school at the Rheem site.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By cleanup crew (anonymous) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 11:43:29

You could afford to remediate WH to build a stadium but not a school, different cleanup standards would apply.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted July 19, 2010 at 11:57:43

I doubt bulldozing Sir John A. will ever be on the table. That school is in better shape than a lot of the board's assets, so knocking it down would be a big waste of their money.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By arcadia (anonymous) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 12:01:50

SJAM is actually a pretty beautiful building despite its flaws. I always wonder when I walk by it: why not windows? Retrofit some rows of big windows on all sides and it would be stunning. This an architecturally naive thought maybe, but it's presumptuous just to say tear it down. I'd rather see the Federal Building torn down, if our brownfield mecca is suddenly lacking in space!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Hunter (anonymous) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 13:01:28

East Mountain vs. no stadium is an easy call - no stadium. Taxpayers and voters would approve.

It's a shame that it's come to this and that the so-called mediator proposed this preposterous location.

Leave Bob Young to twist in the wind at Ivor Wynne until he sells. I was at IW on Saturday and it was glorious. Go Ti-cats.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 13:31:18

SJAM site is challenging no dought, but I feel this location is the best location possible and probably the only site that comes close to meeting the needs of both the Tiger-Cats and The City of Hamilton. Moving a high school in short order would be difficult but not impossible. Bratina suggested a site at Bay and Sheafe, which would back onto Central Park. That site may provide a legacy use for the warm-up track if it were placed in the park in close proximity to a new school and close enough to the stadium. SJAM is a pie shaped lot with about 650 feet fronting on Bay, 900 on Cannon, 200 on Hess and 1100 on York. So if you were to stick to a north/south configuration along Bay it could be designed to fit, with or without a velodrome or warm-up track on the western end of this property. Now we may be able to place the velodrome at the Rheem site or the 5 acre city yards on the south side of Barton at Caroline, which would enhance the location of the High School and/or create Bayfront developments. Recently the Board of Education completed a school project in Beasley Park along with a community centre. I can't remember the specifics but at the time it crossed my mind that it would be similar in size to a new high school (by population) I remember it costing $14 million dollars. I also read somewhere that the asking price for the 15 acre site on the east mountain is $7.9 million, not to mention the 40 acres for 6000 parking spots or roughly $20 million more. So it seems to me that if we could get the powers that be to at least consider a third option, this may be the real compromise site.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted July 19, 2010 at 14:18:55

Does anybody know what the city's plan is for the big 10-acre triangular void at the end of Frid street? Will that be part of McMaster innovation centre?

http://maps.google.ca/maps?ll=43.25533,-...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By synxer (registered) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 14:47:43

Bob,

We sympathize with your concerns for profitability. Worthy concerns, but I feel that human psychology plays a role here. A rather large role, especially since Hamilton suffers an image problem.

I fear that the majority of the voices you are hearing that support an East Mountain location may be those who see big box development to be synonymous with "moving forward".

The mentality I speak of is: "Oakville and Burlington are our neighbours and they are doing well. Look at all of these new outlets!"

A large portion of Hamiltonians associate downtown as a wasteland to be forgotten. It is this stigma that keeps our downtown from revitalization. We collectively perpetuate this stigma when we build away from our problems. The idea of a stadium downtown to someone who views downtown as a wasteland will not support a downtown stadium.

Our self image negativity effects our ability to bid, commit, hire more qualified officials, get funding, build infrastructure, help those who need help, be taken seriously, take ourselves seriously as a major city. The list is long and the root always seems to be our image.

I really do understand your goals, Bob. They are mostly good ones. But this stadium is not just about the Tigercats, the Pan Am Games, events, concerts or visibility.

As someone who has lived in Hamilton most of my life, I know when someone looks at the East Mountain location they are gonna think, "not even the Tigercats want to be in this city." That is Not A Good Thing.

This "VS." narrative is more hinged with reality:

2 years of "new car smell" appeal, followed by low attendance, no networked incentives to drive to EM, no concerts or events

vs.

2 years of low attendance followed by improvements to our image, long term infrastructure revitalization, restaurants, boutiques, hotels and a list of reasons to be 10 minutes from the stadium. Bob Young is a hero.

Comment edited by synxer on 2010-07-19 13:52:15

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Centrist (registered) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 16:42:31

Good. I hope the darn stadium is built in another city. The Ti-Cats should stay at Ivor Wynne.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammer4ever (anonymous) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 16:42:56

no stadium is better than the east mountain. This is more than a place to watch the cats as it is a place I hope will be open to the public to run on the track and train our young athletes and for the community to enjoy.

regarding the post about the innovation district. I shudder at an earlier suggestion by the cats about placing the stadium on the chedoke golf course but I'm sure there is a footprint that would work on brownfield in the innovation district area. Perhaps a land swap with the rail yards/steel care?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted July 19, 2010 at 17:01:53

More and more I'm reminded of a couple contemplating marriage. It's back and forth, this fear, then that worry, this concern, that anticipation. There's enough being discussed that they both know that instead of going ahead with the anticipated wedding date, they should put the brakes on and reconsider. Honestly and openly.

But they don't. They go ahead out of 'obligation', out of fear of embarrassment, all kinds of reasons.

And we all know how these situations tend to turn out, even understanding the general divorce rate.

Under the best of circumstances, when it's just the idiosyncrasies of the marketplace as the main variable, things are hard enough to make work in a stadium situation. But when you've got these kinds of variable? Oi vey.

(Slightly connected, regarding my previously-suggested point that at the very start of this process the question being 'Urban or sub-urban'...a premise Mr. Young rejected...I realized a great analogy: it's like two people deciding to get married...only when they're sorting out the details, one person holds to a monogamous philosophy, the other to a non-monogamous one. Just as with what I've suggested, it's either-or, it can't be both...and everything starts and ends there. Doesn't matter about the house you might live in, or the number of kids you might agree on...if you don't agree on this first point, you're dead in the water. And this is, I believe, the case with the Pan Am stadium...no matter what kind of semantical gymnastics you want to engage in.)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted July 19, 2010 at 17:08:05

@hammer4ever

Steelcare Plant 6 (the place south of Aberdeen) is a transloading facility that unloads railcars, and is Steelcare's main office - they would not part with it easily for those reasons. I was more thinking that Steelcare Plant 20 (AKA the Careport Centre, located west of Longwood and north of Aberdeen) might be something the company would part with for the right price, and is sitting on 15 acres of land that might be a good stadium site... It is just around the corner from that big blank spot on the map at the end of Frid street that I have no idea what's there, which could help service Mr. Young's parking needs.

In the extreme day-dream pie-in-the-sky case, the ground floor of some of the yet-to-be-built buildings at Innovation Park could become storefronts providing a modern streetwall of offices-over-stores/restaurants/bars facing the stadium - widen longwood to add street-side parking and a nicer sidewalk. That location is right next to the 403 offramp, in walking distance from the Aberdeen and Westdale neighborhoods.

On the negative side, it is boxed in by the expressway and the Steelcare/CN rail-yard and innovation park, so it's not really a commercial neighborhood until you cross the overpass to the CHML building plaza or head up Aberdeen to Dundurn to where the Tim Hortons no longer resides... and there isn't any of the downtown wasteland of surface-level parking you could use to supplement parking needs, nor any local businesses you could filch it from besides the plant-6 yard that is constantly packed with transport trucks. And it's a bit of a hike (about 10 minutes up Longwood) from the planned King street LRT stop.

Disclaimer(s): (1) I am an employee of the Carego Group of Companies (2) I have no idea if the owner would would take such an offer, or whether he interested in selling Steelcare Plant 20 under any circumstances. I am talking entirely out of my buttocks.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By red24 (registered) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 17:52:09

"the team's refusal to commit to the West Harbour means the Province will opt to locate the Pan Am stadium elsewhere."

I would like to see where this has been publicly stated. Or maybe it has only been privately stated to Mr. Young.

I know Ian Troop of HOSTCO mused about bid books changing after the games being awarded if no deal can be made with the Ticats, but this is pretty terrible way to make public policy. Essentially the Province has handed the keys over to the Ticats and subverted the City's authority to make decisions about spending its own money and its own priorities (in policy domains that are clearly under municipal jurisdiction).

Initially I thought it was a thinly-veiled threat to get the two sides talking, but if it's become Provincial policy, then somebody should be button-holing the Premier to get the real story. Frankly, the threat itself is useless unless there is some doubt about whether the stadium would be lost or not.

This raises other questions, however. What are the Province's criteria for a legitimate legacy? What other legacy visions were assessed (the term vision really flatters the Ticats proposals)? Who made the decision that the Ticats would be the primary legacy use?

red24

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Centrist (registered) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 19:28:10

The Ti-Cats play 10 at home games, plus possibly a few playoff games. And for that they need a whole new stadium? Give me a break.

Part of the fun of going to a Ti-Cat game is going to Ivor Wynne. What other sports stadium in North America can you go to where no one sits in the seats marked on their tickets and instead sit where ever the heck they want. The atmosphere at Ivor Wynne is always fantastic. I love sitting high up in the south stands and being able to look out at the old steel mills in the distance. It's a fantastic experience that will be lost if the Cats move to a new location. Look at how much it sucks to go see an Argos game now that they've moved to the SkyDome.

Honestly, in my opinion, the Cats should have no say in the stadium debate. If they want a new stadium, they should build their own. Why is Bob Young thinking provincial and municipal funding should go towards his desire for a "big league" stadium?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By web973 (anonymous) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 21:09:28

Mr. Young, you say it is East Hamilton site or no stadium for Hamilton; I say to you it is the West Harbour site or no city funding for you and the Ti-cats.

The West Harbour site has many advantages to it when you look at it as a whole for the city. It will push the LTR development into Hamilton extending to Stoney Creek and Grimsby to the head of the line. The expansions and improvement in the HSR would be priority for the city as well to bring people to the stadium and the downtown core. A stadium in the West Harbour would be a reward to those business owners who have maintained their presences in the area and would attract more development into the downtown core with respect to both business and residential. The stadium would not affect the existing residence as it would be flanked by residential communities on only 2 sides and the new development of residence would be beyond those areas but still within walking distance of the stadium. The West Harbour will not have an over abundance of parking but currently neither does Ivor Wynne Stadium, the site will not offer as great naming rights and advertising because it is not on a major highway but again currently neither does Ivor Wynne. The West Harbour site does offer a much better user experience; visitors to the stadium can make a day of a trip spending time in the revitalized downtown core and at the harbour at pier 4. It offers to picturesque view one looking out across the harbour to the skyway and Burlington and the other up the escarpment, both of which can be used to boost tourism within the city.

If the Stadium is built in the East Mountain as you would have it there would be a much greater impact to the residence surrounding it and cost associated with developing this location, all the while not offering the city nearly as great a return as the West Harbour site. The East Mountain site would offer a much greater area for parking, revenue which you and the Ti-Cats would collect not the city. It would offer much better naming rights for advertisement, again revenue that you and the Ti-Cats would collect not the city. It would cause re-development of all the roads and infrastructure which finished not that long ago and took over 50 years to complete (I would not wish to see that can of worms re-opened) to support the stadium otherwise it is going to be a parking lot on the highways trying to get to the stadium and out afterwards; highways that were created to help keep the trucks out of the city. Where do you think these trucks are going to go when they can't get through on the highways? Instead of sharing the infrastructure development cost with partners like Bombardier who operates Go Transit, the provincial government, and CN Rail this would be a costs put onto the city as it would mainly be roadways that are impacted. The stadium would be nestled in and surrounded by a budding residential community and would stand out like an eyesore as nothing will be of the same size as the stadium as opposed to be built into the skyline of the downtown core not offering any type of view beyond looking at a sea of parking and a clogged highway, views that in no way could help the tourism industry. The residence would now have games, concerts, and whatever else the stadium would host in their backyards, not something I would like to have. It will not help the downtown core at all, all the city infrastructure funding would be spend developing and serving this area to ensure that roads and drainage would work, there will be nothing left for things like the LTR and HSR developments into the downtown. Businesses in the core would look to move out as there would be nothing to bring people in and no new bussines will be coming in to fill the void when they leave making the downtown area a ghost town that is only going to continue to degrade over time without development.

In summary the West Harbour site is the site that is best for all parties involved, The City as a whole, its residence, its merchants, its business owners, and yourself Mr. Young; you get a large portion of a new stadium constructed for you through other funding agencies. If you are unwilling to do what is best for all involved and not just yourself then I invite City council to start discussing with other parties a partnership to develop the Stadium such as Mr. Daryl Katz who has already expressed an interest in the downtown core and Copps Coliseum. Develop the stadium with these parties and when it comes time that you Mr. Young need assistance from the City to keep Ivor Wynne running or upgrade it I am sorry but the time and funding for this has come and gone. I am a Ti-Cat fan and would hate to see this opportunity disappear for the City and for the Ti-Cats because you are not looking at what is best for all as a whole but what is best for you.

I ask you Mr. Young what is better, a stadium in the West Harbour for all to share and profit from or no stadium for you and the Ti-Cats.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tecumseh (registered) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 21:31:24

Why do the Ticats have to be the only potential legacy use? What if Hamilton never had the Ticats, would we not have been offered the stadium by the Pan-Am organizers/Provincial gov't in the first place because of a lack of legacy uses? I don't think so. Surely concerts, festivals, high-school football, the potential for CIS football playoff games, exhibition soccer games, etc, would satisfy the province that there will be some lasting legacy at the West Harbour site, regardless of its capacity or the presence of a CFL team.

You know what's tragic about this whole mess? Is that it's turned long-time Ticat fans against the Tiger Cats. I have wonderful memories of watching games at Ivor Wynne with my dad and brothers - we had seasons tickets for years and years. Now Bob Young just makes me hate them. As much as I love(d) the Ticats I love Hamilton more, and the threats he's levelling against our city just make me sick. I for one am ready to hold onto my memories and let the Ticats die as far as I'm concerned.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By pddd (registered) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 21:42:09

I have been a Tiger-Cats season ticket holder for many years now and i am grateful to Bob Young's investment in the team however I do not understand his firm opposition to the West Harbour location.I believe that the Team will lose fans if it relocates to the East Mountain. A lot of people walk or take public transportation to the games at the current site; surely many of these fans will not attend games at the proposed East Mountain stadium. Not everybody has a car. I am also dismayed at the often venomous attacks on the Mayor in the Fan Forum on the Tiger-Cats website, particularly in the thread entitled "What is the Mayor up to?" Surely more respect is due to a man who has had the courage to run and win in an election and who is trying his best to improve downtown Hamilton. I suspect that there are many season ticket holders like me who will be considering not renewing if the West Harbour site is rejected.

(edited by administrator to fix formatting)

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2010-07-19 21:03:56

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By bigguy1231 (registered) | Posted July 20, 2010 at 02:14:34

Just a question to the RTH staff. Have you tried forwarding Bob's email to the Premier, Mayor, Ian Troop or our local liberal members of the legislature to see what their views are in regard to Bob's statement.

I seriously doubt the Premier even knows what's going on and he will have the ultimate say in whether or not funding is moved elsewhere. What about Tim Hudak who's riding abuts the East mountain location. Maybe turning up the heat on provincial and federal representatives will get them involved or at least they might let it be known where they stand on the issue as far as funding is concerned.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By skully2001 (registered) | Posted July 20, 2010 at 08:09:06

Should anyone wish to let the Ticats know of their intentions to never set foot in an EM stadium (as I have done), you can email Young's lapdog, Scott Mitchell directly at smitchell@ticats.ca

Go for it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By H+H (registered) - website | Posted July 20, 2010 at 09:02:13

Bibguy1231

I'm quite sure the Premier knows what's going on. At least his senior staff do. How else do you explain a private. sole-practitioner named Michael Fenn pulling a provincial rabbit out of his hat (ORC lands), AND telling an enraptured Council that there may be some offsetting investment in the WH to compensate an EM location? He doesn't have that kind of authority.

How else do you explain Bob Young writing (in the past tense I might add) on these pages:

"The Province never really cared where in Hamilton the stadium was going to be built. They just wanted to see a successful stadium that would contribute the future economic success of Hamilton. When they recognized that the West Harbour did not have the access needed to run a successful large audience event business in the West Harbour they then changed their position on that location."

I for one missed that media release. People like Bob Young and Michael Fenn are not naive enough to make the statements they have made without having the benefit of prior knowledge. It simply doesn't work any other way.

This debate, and decision, moved beyond the municipal level when our Councillors started fighting, first with each other, and then with Bob Young (although I think he can assume the lion's, or should I say tiger's, share of the blame for his too late declarations and fanciful investment announcements).

As much as I'm inspired by the grassroots groundswell, and pleased to be directly involved, I'm getting a sick feeling that we haven't even begun to see how ugly this whole thing is going to get. The Future Fund debate is before us if the EM site is selected. This will result in a fight with the City of Hamilton about its contribution being returned to the Fund. I'm pro WH, but, I'm as strongly for ensuring the investment from the Future Fund is for city building, not just stadium building. No money from the Fund means no stadium. Which, according to Mr. Young means no Ti-Cats. I don't like that at all, but I most certainly can live with that conclusion.

Hamilton will continue to be the toilet in the grand spa bathroom until we ensure we're represented by at least 10 intelligent, well-travelled, well-read Councillors. In the private sector when employees report to incompetent managers who make their lives miserable face 3 choices. Move to another department or company. Stay and suffer. Try to improve or remove the manager. We all have some decisions to make before October 25.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted July 20, 2010 at 09:31:06

Tecumseh, I think Bob Young has underestimated the number of people who feel like you do. He probably thinks we're all enraptured Cats fans who would never dare speak out against the team. And 99% of the time, he'd be right. But not when the Cats try to pull off a last-minute scumbag deal that will do great harm to our city and waste tons of taxpayer money.

We love Hamilton more than we love the Cats.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By sselway (registered) | Posted July 20, 2010 at 14:24:15

The Convention Centre, Hamilton Place, Copps Coliseum, Jackson Square have done little to rejuvenate downtown. We paved the Red Hill Valley with an expressway. We renovated City Hall exterior with concrete blocks. We brought box store shopping to the Centre Mall. Building a stadium at the West Harbour is a waste and will be done exactly the same way!

What we need is people living downtown and in the surrounding neighbourhoods.

Setting Sail, the secondary plan is exactly right: strengthen existing neighbourhoods -support JAMES street as the area's main commercial - encourage new commercial that cater to the neighborhoods - enhance amenities - augment existing parkland - generally AVOID expropriation of residential and commercial properties - etc. (page 6)

Putting a stadium-precinct development at the West Harbour is a huge mistake. By supporting the West harbour site, you are asking for more of what we got already, another huge empty structure, concrete exterior, widened roads, more parking lots, and more people moving out as we have had schools closed, a library closed, drug store closed already.

What we need is people living downtown, shopping downtown, eating downtown because they LIVE downtown. The downtown cannot survive solely on people who VISIT downtown.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted July 21, 2010 at 08:17:41

There's a new proposal on the table for the WH location that include a residential component. I'm not sure about the legitimacy of it but Bob Bratina was on 900CHML yesterday talking about it. The interview is here:

http://www.900chml.com/Channels/Reg/News...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JM (registered) | Posted July 21, 2010 at 09:44:17

Is this new proposal legit?????? Is AEG still / actually interested!?

JM

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted July 21, 2010 at 10:56:38

From the sounds of the interview it was legitimate. It sounds like a decent proposal as well. I'd like to see the paperwork and renderings tho.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted July 21, 2010 at 11:16:38

The renderings can be seen here:

http://hamiltonbay.blogspot.com/p/vision...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By skully2001 (registered) | Posted July 21, 2010 at 14:39:56

Surprise, surprise...Ticat's Scott Mitchell response to the proposal is to describe it as "shenanigans" and that if it had any credibility, the company would've contacted the Ticats long ago...

Riiiiiiight.

Any way you cut it, the man's an arse. Just sayin'.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted July 23, 2010 at 16:38:45


Jason said "Time to do the unthinkable and switch to the double blue".

You should be put in prison for even thinking such a thing!

Jason, Bob Young has done more for Hamilton than anybody who frequents this site, including that idiot Harry Stinson who has done nothing in this city but talk.

Not only has Mr. Young saved the Cats from bankruptcy he moved the team's head office to dt. The east mountain is a business decision, something you know nothing about since you have no money at stake in what is going on. Mr. Young has millions at stake.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted July 23, 2010 at 16:42:25

Jason, I noticed that your community church has a church located on Pritchard Avenue (or the church is in the planning stages). This is in the same location as the proposed ticats stadium.

Why is it ok for you to locate your new church in the "suburban sprawl" of the east mountain but it is not okay for the ticats?

Please provide an answer for the viewers of this site.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted July 23, 2010 at 17:56:41

Look everybody! Jr. Detective Capitalist and his little sidekick Wiccan have shown up for their monthly trolling! Hi guys! I was starting to miss you.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds