Sports

Longwood and Aberdeen Stadium Location Rumour

By RTH Staff
Published August 19, 2010

this blog entry has been updated

From the Hamilton Spectator:

There are rumours that the city and the Ticats are in talks about a new stadium - this time near Chedoke Golf Course.

A councillor has told the Mountain News that a site near Longwood and Aberdeen is in the mix for a Pan Am stadium as the clock ticks down. The councillor said the city and senior Ticats executives are discussing the site.

This is not the first time this location has been floated, and it's one that satisfies several requirements of the Tiger-Cats as well as some of the city-building objectives of the city. That said, it's very late in the day to be choosing new locations, especially given that timing is one of the key requirements of HostCo.

All that aside, we've learned to take anything coming out of the Mountain News with a grain of salt. Our take on this right now: it's an unsubstantiated rumour with a strong likelihood of being false.

But it's certainly interesting nonetheless.

Update: So this rumour turned out to be true. Kudos to the Mountain News, and sorry for ever doubting you.

72 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Henry and Joe (anonymous) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 12:07:18

Please let it be a bad dream. I want someone to wake me up from this stadium nightmare!

Message to business: We are not expecting any clustering of jobs in this region, so let' build a money losing stadium on our most valuable employment lands. Just a guess, but I see Brad Clark's name all over this.

Message to Brad: STOP HURTING HAMILTON!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted August 19, 2010 at 12:26:10

I think it's a dream we would all like to wake up from for different reasons Henry and Joe.

Some days I think living in Hamilton is a bad dream (or a curse), and some days I wake up feeling like I can have some kind of influence in 'changing the world'. I'd like to wake up on the latter side of the bed much more.

I hope some or all of those 'voices of change' in The Spec the other day, can actually make their way into office and help us create the change that is needed in this city.

We would have had an NHL team long ago had we done one thing Harrold Ballard wanted us to do. Fix IWS. Hmmm...help one team and in turn, get another one.

Comment edited by lawrence on 2010-08-19 11:36:40

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By bigguy1231 (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 12:56:32

I just noticed on the Spec site that this story has been removed from the main. It has been relegated to the lesser lites where it should be. Brad Clark was on CHML, big surprise, talking this rumour up. So we know this idea won't be going far. It's already started to lose it's newsworthiness after only an hour.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By DanJelly (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 13:33:54

Just wait until people realise that in order to satisfy the Ticats' demands the Chedoke Golf Course will have to be paved over for paid parking.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By redcliff (anonymous) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 14:04:05

I posted this on another thread but would appear to suit this one better:

Longwood and Dundurn all of the way..this is a nice compromise for those on both sides of this debate

City:

- Urban redevelopment (may not be contaminated ground, but still redevelopment)
- Public transit access HSR, GO Bus and GO Train(there is a rail spur right beside the location - easily accessible by GO)
- Parking would be reclaimed from abandoned gravel surface off of Frid
- Congestion should be cut down due to access to 403 (people will jump on 403 to link - rather than cutting down Aberdeen)
- Realizing that the downtown may not get a direct boost - but option is better than the ti-cats leaving and not having a presence in the city
- A stadium is not the cure to downtown revitalization and renewal, I understand that there would have been some benefit but LRT and gentrification of current business district can help the process along much faster and maintain a sustainable downtown (if the cats are having a poor season i.e., 5,ooo people 9 times a year is not going to revitalize the downtown core - nor will the high school finals played in the stadium)
- boost to ailing portion of Main St. W. and Dundurn St. district
- promote use of bikelanes on Dundurn St


Ti-Cats:

-Highway visibility
-Easily service their fan base via 403 and Go access
-Sufficient parking should be available to drive revenue requirement sought by Ti-Cat organization
-Accommodates both - those seeking a driveway to driveway option or those wish to access stadium via public transit

These are just a couple of points off the top of my head. I think the point I am trying to develop is that in life people have to make fair compromises. In my mind this would appear to be a fair compromise....

On a personal note, I understand some people have no interest in the Tiger Cats whatsoever or maintaining their presence in Hamilton.

However, I still enjoy hearing the stories from my wifes 94 year old granddfather about the epic battles that took place on the HAAA grounds by the Hamilton Tiger Cats (If the Ti-Cats were a building, they would be considered a heritage site).

To be honest I am not what you would call a loyal die hard fan, I attend maybe 2-3 games a year. I support my tax dollars going towards the Tiger Cats because they are an institution of this City (You only had to be at the final playoff game last year to understand what I am talking about).

Cities the size of Hamilton need things to rally around, something to cheer for once in a while. The Ti-Cats are Hamilton's elite team (by Canadian standards). Losing them would have a greater effect than I think is fully understood.

Sometimes you have to deal with greed and take the high road, because you know the result will benefit the greater good of everyone.



2nd post:

It would appear using Google Earth The Stadium site is 12.73 acres and the gravel field 273m away is 11.55 acres, this should be sufficient enough, like I said compromises on both sides.

To be honest I am a West Harbour supporter (but do not support it if it costs the city a institutional sports team). I also understand ("get") the economics Bob Young is trying to drive. The Dundurn/Longwood site is very different from West Harbour. I believe it accommodates both sides of the issue a more realistic manner.

Comment edited by redcliff on 2010-08-19 13:19:40

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jarod (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 14:34:01

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Didn't we vote on this already? Isn't any further site investigation moot? I only ask because continuing to look for another site after the committee of the whole finally backed up their support for the West Harbour, and was then ratified by city council, seems to fly in the face of process.

I'm just curious whether or not there's a point to voting, approving and moving forward on any given project if people are still going to continue to try and push their agenda and pay no heed to the city officials and the way they voted? Maybe that's why it is only rumor at this point?

Maybe someone could clarify whether site selection is still even a possibility, after having been voted on already.

Thanks

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tybalt (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 14:35:52

Sorry, I posted this in the other thread before realizing that the discussion had moved here...

"There is a suggestion floating around on CHML that is being thrown out there that a Longwood and Aberdeen should be a compromise between the TigerCats and the city. What does everyone think?"

It would completely destroy the planned future expansion of the McMaster Innovation Park, the best and most promising economic growth opportunity in the city right now. I'd rather pave over 100 acres of cornfields, honestly.

That said, the stadium would be practically in my backyard - I could walk there in under 10 minutes - and I would certainly enjoy that. But if we're to retain any semblance of sensible development priorities, then this is a bad idea. It's too late to move the CANMET facility, which is the kind of anchor tenant that is going to drive the expansion of the Innovation Park. And the Careport facility is - I think (but am not sure) - just too small to put a viable stadium for the Cats on.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tybalt (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 14:37:05

And yes, there is no parking at all. There is way less parking at that location than at West Harbour. Also, West Hamilton and the McMaster area absolutely does not need the economic development the same way that the North End does - I know, I live here. We're doing OK.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jarod (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 14:41:24

I was just looking at the map as well. It appears that there are fewer roads (with as high capacity) and accesses in and out, which as we all know will likely lead to more congestion.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tybalt (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 16:05:43

OK, I take back my comment about CarePort being too small. It's very small, but not TOO small.

On the other hand, I have heard (through the grapevine at my former employer) that McMaster owns that land and the Innovation Park has BIG plans for it. CarePort are trying to make a go of it (and have a lease for now) but Mac would want a pretty penny to sell that site.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 16:32:43

Queens Park: can you please take Clark back? Some of us are actually interested in building a successful city here with good jobs at MIP. Clearly he enjoys making fun of us more than helping us.

Comment edited by Jason on 2010-08-19 15:34:01

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted August 19, 2010 at 16:57:56

Wouldn't keeping the Cats at IW be better for redcliff? Fans already utilize The Centre on Barton for park and ride which brings business to Redcliff's clients.

I have got highway visibility for ya. How about some signs on the highway or around town telling passers by that Ivor Wynne Stadium exists? Why don't we have signs by any of our cities entrance points? Are we embarassed by it or where it is?

If we are embarrased about where IW is, West/North End isn't much different than East/North end except for some water beyond the multiple lines of train tracks that will seperate the stadium from the waterfront. Just two forgtten neighborhoods that need a little something or a fixed existing something to make them so much more.

How about some pillars like at Wellington and King as you enter downtown, at either end of the stadium on Barton? 'Welcome to the Home of the Hamilton Tiger-Cats', or something like that.

This whole visibility non-sense and naming rights is hogwash. It's not visible because nothing points to it. Ivor Wynne doesn't even have it's own website for Pete's sake. How unprofessional is that. I had to go to Wikipedia to find a contact person/number for the guy who looks after Ivor Wynne.

A new rumor everyday. lol I have a great rumor. We are saving Ivor Wynne and restoring it. :)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JonC (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 17:02:49

Innovation park (the land in question) is spoken for by a combo McMaster/government multiphase development project . The only people that would believe and spread this rumor are people that didn't bother putting any thought into where the stadium should have been built in the first place (Brad Clark, I'm looking at you).

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tybalt (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 17:18:38

JonC, the land in question is across Longwood Road from the Innovation Park. It's a former warehousing/trucking facility that is now a grade-Z convention and trade centre. But as I noted above, I have been told that the land is actually owned by Mac or one of its partners in the Innovation Park, although there are no immediate plans for it.

Comment edited by Tybalt on 2010-08-19 16:19:35

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 17:27:09

Actually there are immediate plans for that site. I'm mobile or I'd link to the recent articles about it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 17:30:12

Just Clark trying to gather support for a mutiny or save face on that 'Torontos Laughing' remark. Maybe he's taking lessons from Merulla 'any publicity, good or bad is better than no publicity at all.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 18:50:37

Convert an abandoned industrial brownfield with lots of nearby parking no other plans...or convert an innovative startup incubator next to a public park and a world biosphere preserve.

Hmmm, tough decision.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JonC (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 19:08:34

http://www.mcmasterinnovationpark.ca/upl...

Phases 7, 8 & 9.

The only property west of the tracks in that area that isn't part of Innovation Park is Hamilton Metals.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MIP (anonymous) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 20:28:11

ARea west of Longwood is to be used for MAC's new hybrid auto centre

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By H+H (registered) - website | Posted August 19, 2010 at 22:02:33

All I can say is I hope this story is fantastical. Otherwise, I'm concerned that Hamilton is once again betting we will fail, this time in our attempts to ensure innovation is part of our future economy. Allocating a minimum of 20-30 acres to a stadium in and around our barely born Innovation Park is misguided, to say the least. So much for city building as a goal.

If Bob Young says he supports this idea, surely I'm trapped inside an episode of Green Acres, such is the inanity of this suggested location.

I want to build a city, not build an out for the Ti-Cats. Certainly they are part of our cultural fabric, but the fact is they are only a part of it, this despite "Foxey's" vacuous nonsense on CHML that the "Ti-Cats are our source of civic pride." Talk about a pea-less whistle!

A $120 million stadium gift should be enough for Young as a so-called partner to say, "Whatever location you select, we will be there with a huge smile on our face and an enormous debt of gratitude in our heart." Greedy is my conclusion. Always has been. Enough of the pandering. Stand tall. Build a city, not a stadium!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 22:10:29

Just when I thought City Council had already voted on this issue, I wake up in Kansas.

Is anyone getting the idea that some people would favour a stadium anywhere BUT downtown? It almost seems that there's actually a desire to do anything possible to further draw people away from the heart of our city. Proponents of this site, if there actually are any, must have forgotten all the reasons the West Harbour was inappropriate because this site trumps those in spades.

When the Red Hill Valley Parkway was being protested blowhards of every stripe were quick to mention that the decision had already been made. But now that the shoe's on the other foot, democracy's a heck of a lot harder to swallow.

Comment edited by realfreeenterpriser on 2010-08-19 21:20:33

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By UrbanRenaissance (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 22:28:05

I have a (cynical) suspicion that this rumoured site is purposely being set up to fail. So that way when the city rejects it due to its obvious flaws (limited access, no brownfield remediation, and the fact that MIP owns most of the land and intends to use it for real jobs), the Bob Young supporters can claim that "yet another site is rejected by the city", and continue the claims that the Mayor is "fixated" on the WH.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 23:18:46

Well if you choose the best location, obviously you're just prejudiced against the inferior sites, no way you could be opposed to them because they're inferior. :P

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 23:48:06

Urbanrenaissance, you're exactly right.
This is a big set up, which explains DiIanni showing up at the rally tonight (everything is political to him). MIP is a garbage stadium location. City Staff shouldn't be discussing anything other than WH until Young releases some reports, studies, numbers, napkin doodles, ANYTHING. Why would we dream of changing our preferred location to give the Cats a new, free stadium with zero proof that it's a bad site?? Cmon staff. Don't get scared by the Cats lame games. They don't have a penny to put towards construction so let's give them less than a pennys' worth of input.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 20, 2010 at 00:05:59

No other location will be picked before the decision is made at the end of the month , it's already been presented. If hamilton gets a NO for the harbor..either hamilton is out of the running or they will tell the city to make another site available. If that is part of mcmaster inovation park or they had plans for it's a non-starter and would be the reason it wasn't even looked at. The most probable thing would be city owned land at this time (if they get a 2nd chance)...it would have to be a quick decision.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted August 20, 2010 at 01:44:14

Like it or not the site has been confirmed. To even entertain any alternate site at this point in time would be foolish at best. We've had two site selection extensions from HostCo and there is little doubt another request would be catastrophic. HostCo has indicated other municipalities are interested in the stadium and further delays will surely raise questions about our willingness to participate. Lay blame where you may, but we must stay the course and hopefully be approved for funding. Lose the PanAm Stadium and the Tiger-Cats may follow that funding to a new stadium elsewhere. The M.I.P lands have little if any chance of approval. Over 1 million sq. ft. of research and development space is either being built or in the planning stage. Neither the City, McMaster or the Province will allow these employment lands to be used for a stadium, much less a parking lot. The Councilors who wish to revive this debate for political gain surely don't have the best interests of the city as a priority or they wouldn't have chosen this site. They deserve to be banished from office. We deserve Better.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted August 20, 2010 at 05:06:44

Brad Clark is panicking. I live in his ward and people are fed up with him. If a worthy candidate comes along he is out. This is his Hail Mary pass to appease Ward 9, nobody wants the stadium up here. Another poster is exactly right, Brad Clark IS hurting Hamilton, only to feed his disgusting ego and relentless ambition for power.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By };-) (anonymous) | Posted August 20, 2010 at 08:04:13

Jason,

You wrote . . . "They don't have a penny to put towards construction so let's give them less than a pennys' worth of input."

Where's your money?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By UrbanRenaissance (registered) | Posted August 20, 2010 at 08:14:50

Where's your money?

His money is part of the $120 million in tax dollars that the three levels of government are spending on the stadium. Incidentally, its also my money, your money and the money of everyone else here posting.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By };-) (anonymous) | Posted August 20, 2010 at 08:30:51

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 UrbanRenaissance (registered) | Posted August 20, 2010 at 09:00:23

I see, so on one hand, Jason (taxpayer) is allowed to spew off without restraint and on the other hand, a guy, Young, who has invested millions into a business and the city has to shut up.

No one told Bob Young to shut up, he did that himself when he walked away from the table. But if you're referring to earlier when he was promising to use $15 million of his own money for the stadium, he would have been contributing less than 6% of the overall cost, hardly a majority shareholder. Then he has the gall to try to force the city into a position where he would get almost 100% of the revenue from his 6% investment. Nobody in their right mind would agree to a deal like that.

I'm not saying he hasn't been generous with his philanthropy over the years (and I feel that includes owning the Ti-Cats) but all the philanthropy in the world doesn't give you the right to hijack this process for personal gain.

I would be more than willing to consider alternatives but the fact of the matter is that Bob Young has not produced a single shred of evidence as to why the WH won't work for him. All we have is innuendo, hearsay and in some cases (like the accessibility of the WH) outright falsehoods. Talk may be cheap but so is making claims without any proof.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted August 20, 2010 at 09:51:55

What Young has invested into his business isn't public info, but what he has offered to chip in for the new stadium IS. I'm a Hamilton taxpayer. As of right now I'm footing most of the bill for this stadium. I'd like to think that offering up money also enables me to offer up my opinion. Young is free to do the same.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jonathan dalton (registered) | Posted August 20, 2010 at 11:26:37

My friend grew up in Brad Clark's ward and the only time he met Clark was in a Subway where he was freaking out on the guy for messing up his sandwich. My friend called him a 'weiner' on the way out. He also went to school with Brad's son who apparently was a really big asshole.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted August 20, 2010 at 17:44:07

Asinine. Can I say "asinine" on here? Because that's what this is, absolutely and utterly asinine.

I'll accept it on one condition: West Harbour Innovation Park (WHIP).

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 20, 2010 at 17:44:29

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 realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 20, 2010 at 18:14:49

Jason said "This is a big set up, which explains DiIanni showing up at the rally tonight".

He couldn't be more correct.

What a disgusting piece of work this individual is. It would be difficult to find a more bald-faced example of political opportunism at its sleaziest. Instead of saying something statesmanlike, this weasel first refused to state which stadium location he favoured and then pandered to the crowd and told them they have to convince Council to "include the Tiger-Cats in your plans" (effectively giving them a veto on stadium location) all the while costumed in a Tiger-Cats jersey (pullease). DiIanni's outfit did nothing to quell the rumour that he's been a wide receiver for the development industry for years.

Apparently, DiIanni must have forgotten that he was Mayor during the Commonwealth Games bid that included a stadium located at where? You got it, the West Harbour. What's changed Larry? Oh yeah, I forgot, there's an election on.

Incredibly, DiIanni's running on a platform of "leadership". He can't even decide that he supports a stadium that he already supported. What kind of leadership is that? And if you believe what he said at the rally, he's prepared to allow the Tiger-Cats a defacto veto on stadium location. To me, that sounds a lot more like following than leading.

This behaviour, of course, should come as no surprise to anyone. This is the same guy who accepted $26,000.00 in illegal mayoralty campaign contributions, many of them from developers. That's right, $26,000.00. That's no isolated slip of the pen but rather a well-orchestrated series of large, illegal contributions that the court found were "split" into "legal" ones through the issuance of fraudulent receipts.

And then, after pleading guilty, in a moment reminiscent of Richard Nixon's "I am not a crook" speech, DiIanni actually told the Spectator that he felt that he had come away with his integrity intact. Thank God! Think of how his integrity would have been sullied if he'd suffered the indignity of being found "not guilty" or, worse still, hadn't been charged at all.

The people of Hamilton have already rejected this guy twice. Let's make sure he strikes out in October.

Comment edited by realfreeenterpriser on 2010-08-20 17:25:39

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted August 20, 2010 at 19:50:30

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tybalt (registered) | Posted August 20, 2010 at 20:27:23

Be T, I don't think you've ever had a post on here that wasn't complaining about other (contributing) posters, or whining about the moderation system. Please, stop it. It's irritating and contributes nothing.

And thanks to JonC for that informative link to the Innovation Park website. Clearly, then, with this site already in the hands of McMaster and earmarked for development as part of the Innovation Park, this site is a non-starter (in addition to the obvious fact that the site has been voted on and the deadline passed).

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By cityfan (registered) | Posted August 20, 2010 at 20:39:36

@Andrea

Thanks for that but please spare me what the Ticats have described as a bad decision by the city council. I will not support parkland revitalization over brownfield/toxic waste dump revitalization to build a WH stadium.

The Ticats (sorry, I mean Bob!) have a business agenda and they want to build on Confederation Park, then build it with business dollars not city dollars. Why is that so hard for them to understand. They are getting a free stadium and now we might not get any stadium because of their stubborn behavior. If the decision of WH fails in the first 2 years then sell the team back to the citizens of Hamilton. We will deal with it like we always have because he (Bob) is the 'caretaker'! Please Please Spare me!!!!!!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted August 20, 2010 at 21:12:18

Ha!

I didn't say I was supporting the Ticat propaganda, I merely posted it for discussion. The entire clip speaks for itself, doesn't it?

Vague references to 'many voters' (must be the same as the invisbile experts), bringing up alternate sites when it is far too late, attempts to drum up oppostion to councilors. Awesome stuff in that little 'news clip'. Did you know that the Bay Observer head office is located at the same location as the Ticat head office?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By cityfan (registered) | Posted August 20, 2010 at 22:50:29

LOL! oh i see. BO and Bob in the same building!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 20, 2010 at 23:07:39

Tybalt, my hero for sure, thank you for understanding how the kiddies do not want to admit how anything that doesn't support the WH (go WEST HARBOUR!!!) is suppressed because heaven forbid the peoples voice is heard on this issue. All hail Tybalt, my hero!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted August 21, 2010 at 01:10:55

Since the Ti-cats have only one season left in their contract in Hamilton, what if:
A) Ivor Wynne is refurbished & they refuse to play there.
B) The East Mountain site is given the Go -& they get another offer, (or just for spite) refuse to play their either.
This is just crazy suggesting alternate sight after alternate sight for the stadium.
I'd like to suggest we put it up Brad Clark's..............nose.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 21, 2010 at 07:18:59

To By Be T- you said "thank you for understanding how the kiddies do not want to admit how anything that doesn't support the WH (go WEST HARBOUR!!!) is suppressed because heaven forbid the peoples voice is heard on this issue"

Actually, the peoples' voice HAS been heard. The Angus Reid poll, taken by Canada's most reliable polling firm, indicated that a slim majority of "the people" (especially the upcoming generation of 18-34 year olds) favoured a West Harbour site.

"The people" spoke through their elected representatives on Council in a 10 to 6 vote in favour of that site. The "people" also spoke as delegations to Council.

Like it or not, we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy where every 4 years or so we elect people to represent us. They are like a jury, charged to investigate the issues in front of them in significant detail and then, after deliberation, to come to a decision. A majority of the Councillors representing a majority of the people, from all political stripes, from all parts of the city, pro-developers and environmentalists alike, left and right leaning, favoured the West Harbour.

There are many issues with which Council and I disagree but that disagreement does not mean that the people have not been heard. This issue goes back to Hamilton's very first bid for the Commonwealth games. The "people" had ample time to be heard and they were.

On RTH, everything is posted. It may be downvoted, but it's not censored, so it's still there to be "heard". Did it ever occur to you that immaturely referring to other posters as "the kiddies" may well be at least part of the reason people aren't hearing what you're saying?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 21, 2010 at 08:00:16

The Aug 21, 2010 Spec story is interesting. "Mayor Fred Eisenberger admits the province told him they were ready to help make a stadium on the east Mountain work for the city"."Eisenberger says he didn't share that information with the rest of Hamilton's council before the crucial Aug. 12 stadium vote because the province didn't offer specific details" Who knows what the means in dollars and cents...but does this guy really want to lose his job or what?. Shouldn't he have atleast waited and see what it meant in real numbers??.My big objection to any site is that it shouldn't cost excessively more dollars than another cheaper site (within reason). What if they offered enough money to bridge the gap.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realitycheck (anonymous) | Posted August 21, 2010 at 08:37:53

I have observed lately a certain 'discounting' on opinion based on the age of the person presenting the opinion. There is this thought out there that opinions held by the younger generation is somehow more valid than that of those of an older generation. The rationale seems to be that the up and coming generation should have greater say in the decision-making process, and those of older generations should have their opinion somewhat muted (supposedly because they are going to die soon).

I find this ageist bias disturbing. It appears to be creeping up more and more in society, be it in the common marketplace, a hospital ward, or now in the political decision-making process.

I feel obliged to remind everyone that in a democracy such as Canada, the opinions of all citizens is equally valid regardless of age, race, creed, gender, or sexuality.

There was a time when the opinion of society's elders was held in great regard. There used to be a value to the wisdom accumulated with years of life experience. Discounting the opinions of an older generation puts the younger generation at great risk of repeating the same mistakes of the past. And it discounts the very values upon which our society is based.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JonC (registered) | Posted August 21, 2010 at 14:31:40

rc, I haven't noticed the bias you mention in my day to day (other than the consistant perception that kids think they know better than their folks, which is nothing new), but in this case, the older generation really screwed the pooch on city building. Cognitive bias propels people to keep on in the same vein (rather than have to judge the value of their past decisions), but people that grew up in the burbs and spent their life there have a different perspective on the value of sprawling residential zones and car culture.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 21, 2010 at 21:30:48

The following article from only a year and a half ago makes for interesting reading. Pay special attention to Scott Mitchell's comments on the fact that the Tiger-Cats would be "viable to some extent" at Ivor Wynne and to the fact that he consistently mentions only a "new stadium" without even alluding to location.

"HAMILTON TEAM SETS RULES IN STADIUM BID February 26, 2009 Copyright 2009 MediaVentures

Hamilton, Ontario - Build a new stadium with lots of financial help or go it alone with Ivor Wynne: Those are the two options facing the city, according to Hamilton Tiger-Cats' Scott Mitchell.

The team president said, while the Cats are willing to contribute "millions to tens of millions of dollars" along with other private partners toward a new multi-use facility for the 2015 Pan Am Games that would then be home to the football team, the team is no longer willing to make financial contributions to maintaining the existing Ivor Wynne Stadium.

Mitchell says the team has already paid $7 million in costs related to the stadium in recent years and isn't prepared to keep spending on the 79-year-old facility that has "limited economic spinoff" for the club.

"We put that money in on the basis of a long-term solution becoming available with the new stadium but, if the city did choose to maintain Ivor Wynne stadium, it would still keep us viable to some extent. But we wouldn't be interested in participating in any additional costs at Ivor Wynne," Mitchell said.

His comments come a day after a report by David Adames on the Pan Am Games bid raised the possibility not building a new stadium could cost Hamilton its only professional sports franchise.

The report states C$18 million to C$20 million will be required over the next five to 10 years just to maintain the stadium and a major renovation is estimated to cost about C$94 million. "There is also risk the Hamilton Tiger-Cats, the main tenant at Ivor Wynne and potential partner in a new stadium, may leave Hamilton should a new stadium not be built," he wrote. Mitchell said he spoke to Adames but never told him specifically the Cats would leave without a new stadium.

Nonetheless, Mitchell says the situation needs to be dealt with.

"Either there has to be a new facility in Hamilton or there has to be a major renovation to Ivor Wynne Stadium. If the city doesn't want to do either, obviously we'd have to look at other places to play," he said.

Mitchell said the team doesn't want to appear to be "putting a gun to the city's head," but thinks the decision is straightforward. (Hamilton Spectator)"

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jeffrey93 (registered) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 03:52:38

Just putting this out there...that I have been banned from the Ticats.ca message boards.

Apparently waiting for facts to arrive before jumping to conclusions is frowned upon by the Tiger-Cats.

As most of you are probably aware there is some 'gossip' circulating that the Mayor was offered some type of deal from the Province to try to sway the vote of Hamilton City Council in favour of the East Mountain.

From what I have read no such deal was offered and nothing of any real substance was discussed between the Mayor and a proxy for the Premier of Ontario.

I tried to make those facts known while posting at the Ticats.ca site....I simply said that until we know more, nobody should be jumping to conclusions. All we know right now is that a conversation took place. There is no obligation by the Mayor of Hamilton to make every conversation he has public knowledge.

I took a defensive approach to posters on the Ticats.ca forums and repeatedly stated that until we know more....there is nothing to discuss. Assuming the info we had is true...the Mayor did nothing wrong. I gave several examples of how this is typical government at work. Every little conversation isn't required to be public knowledge and when coming from a higher level of government you don't make anything public until it is official.

Apparently that (the truth) isn't how Ticats.ca rolls....I logged in tonight to see if any more information had become available regarding this issue....only to find I have been permanently banned.

All of my posts were respectful and all were on-topic.

I didn't defend the Mayor...I only stated that until we know more...we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. And that resulted in my banishment from their "public" forums.

I previously stated on Raise the Hammer and on Tictas.ca that I don't care where the stadium is built....I am a long time Ti-Cats fan....so as long as a stadium is built in Hamilton I will be happy. I am now changing my previous neutral stance.

Build the stadium in the West Harbour come hell or high water. I was a born and bred Tiger-Cat fan....but how I have been treated on their website has soiled my opinion of the team. How can I cheer for a team that purposefully bans those people on their message boards that don't agree with them??

I love my Hamilton Tiger-Cats....but after this....after Bob Young has shown his true colours.....screw 'em!!!

Go to Moncton and fail Bob! Go to Quebec City and fail Bob!

If you want to hold this city hostage....and bend every Hamilton Tiger-Cat fan over a barrel as your hostage...go ahead. Do your best! Move the team to wherever you think a city will pony up $110M plus for a stadium. I wish you all the best you cowardly two-faced lying sack of ......stuff.

I was a fan. I hardcore fan. I didn't take the Mayor's side on the Tigercat forums...I simply said "wait until we know more"....and I got banned for that.

That is absolutely pathetic. Bob responded to my signature earlier today and I removed it and commended him for addressing it....after that all I did was try to get people to focus on FACTS. And now I am banned from the Ticats.ca forums.

This must be what political prisoners feel like. Good work Bob. Silence those that don't see it your way....great "discussions" on your website....what a joke.

Ya know what....if a beautiful new stadium in the West Harbour isn't good enough for you.....you aren't good enough for my town. Get out! Go to play in some crap town with your mediocre team and then ask the local government there why you can't make money with a terrible product. I don't care anymore. I WAS a multi-season ticket holder....no longer. I see you as a nice guy when you aren't faced with adversity. Now that you have an issue to face...you have shown that you are an absolute a$$. You responding to me on your forums...then later that day banning me. For what? Because I didn't sign up with your cult to have the Mayor strung up from the nearest tree?

Nice way to treat your fans Bobby. No wonder you lose money. East Mountain....West Harbour...Aldershot...Quebec City....Moncton.....it doesn't matter. You will lose money. Why? Because you have no f'ing clue what you're doing and the people you hire to run your team don't either.

Good night Bobby.....I hope you sleep well knowing that you silenced another objective poster from your Ticats.ca forums.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 08:16:36

Any concerns around what the province did or didn't offer the Mayor are grounded in the misguided believe that a stadium location that would suck people AWAY from the city's core can somehow be made right by throwing provincial money at it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Even if the East Mountain or Confederation Park locations were cheaper they would have been the wrong choice for a post-industrial city with a deteriorating downtown core like Hamilton.

When governments spend millions of dollars of public money, especially on a single piece of infrasture like a stadium, they have an obligation to ensure that as many taxpayers as possible benefit from that expenditure and that the broader interests of the community in general are addressed. In simple terms, the benefit has to be shared.

No one has come up with a location that does those things better than the West Harbour. Moreover, the locations proposed by the Tiger-Cats would do the polar opposite by drawing people away from downtown, eliminating the possibilty of LRT, reducing employment land or paving a public park and in the process would syphon the taxes of all of us into the hands of a billionaire.

Bob Young and the Tiger-Cats simply don't want to share.

Most Hamiltonians love their Tiger-Cats but, to paraphrase Jeffery93 "if a beautiful new stadium in the West Harbour isn't good enough for them and Bob Young, then they're not good enough for us"

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 08:36:59

realfreeenterpriser: if the downtown is dying as you say then it shows what a waste every other development has been and why would we waste more of OUR money in an area nobody wants to be in anway.? Jeffrey93 you call it gossip because you don't agree with it but I read Dreshell's column and I see OUR mayor admitting he had important information that would have helped all sides involved and he kept quiet.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 09:27:59

BeT, it wasn't important information, it was non-information that was then contradicted the next day when the province again reaffirmed it's position to support whatever site the city chose.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 09:44:12

@Jeffrey93 I wish I could say that I am surprised, but that is pretty typical of how the Ticats treat their fans. Your money is not good enough if you don't by into the Ticats vision. Disagreeing with Bob is not permitted. At the time I decided to give up my seasson tickets I found that the account rep was incredibly rude to the point of bullying. It seemed that being a loyal customer for years didn't count for much. Change is good, but I don't think at the cost of alienating your core fan base. From the time Bob Young bought the team he said that it's not Hamilton's team, it's everyone's team (trying to create a regional brand from day 1), then he stated that the argos don't suck and that type of language wasn't suitable. At this point the die-hards have either succumbed to the new Ticat philosophy or fallen into the same situation as you have experienced.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 09:50:38

By Be T you said "if the downtown is dying as you say then it shows what a waste every other development has been and why would we waste more of OUR money in an area nobody wants to be in anway"

Well, actually, it doesn't show that at all and could indicate the exact opposite. The downtown might well be WORSE without those developments. Did it cross your mind that the current state of the downtown could be a reflection of previous development OUTSIDE the core such as Lime Ridge, Eastgate, The Meadowlands, Centre Mall, Clappisons etcetra or are you actually trying to say that those and similar developments IMPROVED the prospects for the downtown? And would it be safe to say that while the downtown development to which you refer was being built a thousand times more money was being spent OUTSIDE the core?

Look around North America. Every post-industrial city that has revitalized its core did so by building stadia downtown, opening the waterfront and building LRT. That's why Pittsburgh's not Mississauga.

Your contention that "nobody wants to be in downtown" only proves my point. Nobody wants to be in a wheatfield on the east mountain either....until you build a stadium there.

I don't live anywhere near downtown but I know that a city can't thrive without a viable core. That requires housing, jobs and attractions like shopping and recreation. When those aspects of community life are dispersed we never achieve the critical mass of people necessary to make a city work.

If you and the likes of Bob Young don't want to share the benefit of public money to make this a livable city by reversing the mistaken trends of the '60's then I hope you can understand why the rest of our community doesn't want to share public money solely to make the Tiger-Cats profitable and Bob Young richer to the exclusion of most everyone else.

It's simple, Hamilton's prepared to share millions of dollars of public money through a new home for the Tiger-Cats, LRT, more people for downtown businesses, and an enhanced waterfront while Bob Young and a few Tiger-Cat fans want it all for themselves.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 10:30:12

the so-called provincial offer is nothing more than a political game being played by Clark, DiIanni and the Ontario Liberals. Notice how they actually didn't 'offer' anything, and then the next day they tried to force EM on us before the citizens of this city fought back and made them turtle. If the Libs think DiIanni or Clark have any hope of being re-elected here with all the idiotic games they've been playing with our future and our money, they have another thing coming.

I'm sure the province was more than willing to throw $20 or $30 million at us in order to get us to locate our stadium in the wrong location so they could completely backtrack on their previous promises for LRT funding being sped up due to a WH stadium. The fact that Clark and DiIanni are participating in the possible demise of our planned LRT is all voters need to know about whether these guys care about Hamilton (Clarks twitter posts remove all doubt) or care about the Liberal Party Machine.

Comment edited by jason on 2010-08-22 09:30:49

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By cityfan (registered) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 11:05:54

a positive fist pump to realfreeenterpriser and jason!!! well written and well put!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 11:09:22

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 Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 11:10:46

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 Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 11:31:10

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 realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 12:27:44

By Be T you say "realfreeenterpriser the point is right there yet you don't see it." Please, specifically, tell me, and the rest of the posters, what the point is that I'm not seeing.

If YOU don't want to come downtown or if YOU don't care if it rots, just say so. Most people take a broader view than that.

If you think that Bob Young and the Tiger-Cats should get virtually exclusive benefit of tens of millions of taxpayers dollars including the future fund, just say so. Most people think as many people and businesses as possible should benefit from public expenditures.

If you really believe that a West Harbour stadium won't help to make our downtown BETTER, do you then, by extension, actually believe that directing 20-30 thousand people to the edges of our city won't make it WORSE?

The only way to make the Tiger-Cats (or any other private business) sustainable is to have revenue equal or exceed expenses. That can be done by any combination of reducing costs, increasing ticket prices and/or attendance. By providing dirt cheap rent and concessions, free HSR and policing and now the newest and best stadium in the CFL, the taxpayers of Hamilton have already done their part.

Once again, to paraphrase Jeffery93 "if that isn't good enough for Bob Young, then he's not good enough for us"

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 12:36:27

By Be T asked "realfreeenterpriser riddle me this: you have 175 in one hand and 125 in the other, which one is heavier?"

It would depend whether they were credits or debits.

....and to follow along with your line of questioning; how high is up?

Just make your point.

Comment edited by realfreeenterpriser on 2010-08-22 11:39:01

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 12:55:06

realfreeenterpriser find out Wednesday

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 15:25:58

Maybe one of these days the myth of people not wanting to go downtown will end. When concerts are sold out thousands from outside Hamilton are going. It's true as somebody mentioned what would be like if you didnt have places like Copps, Hamilton Place etc. When over 13,000 people had season deposits lined up for a potential hockey team they were willing to come. When U2, Bruce Springsteen, Elton John and other artists like that people will go down there and sell out the arena. Are Ticats fans so iffy of whether they would go to a game or not the couldnt accept a location down there...is that a real fan?. People travel 100-200 miles to go a Bills game and don't do much complaining how long it takes to get there. Are they such fans that they wouldn't be willing to walk 2 or 3 blocks to get to a stadium there...as tens of thousands of people that go to Copps now have to do?. The distance you have to park away from Copps wouldnt be much different than the distance you would have to park at a stadium there. In fact it's not very unusal at all to park many blocks away from a downtown stadium/arena in any city...im really at a loss as why people that are going to Ivor Wynne currently..wouldn't go there???. That location was 6 blocks from Copps not on another planet,,,if you go to Copps and are already parking 3 blocks from there...what the frig difference is it if you park 3 blocks away from a football stadium?.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 20:15:41

Does anyone know here if an emergency meeting will be called by council over the stadium issue? Just reading about this possibility in The Spec.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 22:12:17

This whole thing smacks of a setup by the likes of DiIanni, Cunningham and the Purple Mafia (pro-development Conservatives who dress like Liberals) Think about it. DiIanni was spouting off about this "offer" weeks ago although he was quoting millions. How did he know? Dreschel's just selling newspapers as usual. In truth, any "offer" became moot the next day when the feds backtracked anyway. Without something in writing what was Eisenberger supposed to say? He'd be accused by the WH side of tipping the balance without having anything to back it up. Don't forget, when the province announced that the feds would only fund an EM stadium but had nothing in writing, the feds denied ever saying it. Eisenberger would have been in the same boat and could easily have been hung out to dry.

The saddest part of this is that it's all predicated on the mistaken belief that somehow a stadium in a location that will further decimate our downtown and eliminate the possibilty of LRT is OK if it's cheaper. When will we learn that every time property values in the downtown go down, everybody else's taxes go up. Every time we take potential tax-paying land like that on the east mountain and turn it into publicly-owned land we shrink the tax base and everybody's taxes go up. Every time we take employment land out of the mix we cause somebody's kid to have to look elswhere for a job.

Of course, none of this matters to Bob Young or to those who are so incredibly shallow that they think all our community has going for it is a football team and whose greatest concern is that they might have to extricate their fat ass from their car. They'll never understand that, as Mayor Eisenberger said, we're not just building a stadium, we're building a city.

p.s. Q - Who was the Mayor when Hamilton's bid for the Commonwealth Games featured a West Harbour stadium? A - Larry DiIanni

Mr Leadership must have a short memory. Let's hope the voters don't.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted August 22, 2010 at 23:28:01

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 Robbie K (anonymous) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 00:41:05

HamiltonFan, what post are you refering to? If it is the one by realfreeenterpriser Posted August 22, 2010 21:12:17 I don't even think he mentioned Bob's name once. I like BY, but your obsessive man crush with him is really starting to creep me out.

No one is Blaming BY, what they are trying to say is : that type of thinking for decades is what has lead Hamilton's core to it's current state. The first part of solving the problem is identifying it. Check.

It would be silly to continue to make the same mistakes.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 00:58:02

The Liberal's proxy 'offer' was an offer that their might be an offer - Sometime in the future. There was nothing to report, so why would the Mayor report it?

IMHO, this was simply a delaying tactic so that they could get their own way through some backroom deals. Thanks Fred for not taking the bait.

(Given that they have done almost Nothing that they promised, but have done a nice job of going full steam ahead with silly red herrings, & none-issues.)

The Lib's aren't exactly consistent in following through on the 'offers' that they have made over their last (almost)2 excruciating terms in office. :{
They could be gone in October, along with their 'something like an offer, but not really'.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 01:10:06

To Realitycheck who said,"I find this ageist bias disturbing. It appears to be creeping up more and more in society, be it in the common marketplace, a hospital ward, or now in the political decision-making process."

If you find ageist bias disturbing now, just wait a 5 years until a few million more Boomers hit pension age. We are already the enemy in some circles, just wait until we become an actual Burden! :) (Soylent Green, anyone? :D

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 01:17:06

Thanks Brian: ".im really at a loss as why people that are going to Ivor Wynne currently..wouldn't go there???. That location was 6 blocks from Copps not on another planet,,,if you go to Copps and are already parking 3 blocks from there...what the frig difference is it if you park 3 blocks away from a football stadium?."

EXACTLY RIGHT!!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 21:22:23

HamiltonFan said "Another post blaming Bob Young for Hamilton's ills. What a joke."

If successive Hamilton Councils can be blamed for approving developments like Lime Ridge, Eastgate, Centre Mall, the Meadowlands and Clappisons that sucked the life out of the downtown, I think it's only fair to blame Bob Young and the Tiger-Cats for demanding, at the 11th hour, that the city do the same thing with a stadium.

The big difference, of course, is that the destruction caused by the former developments was paid for with PRIVATE money. Bob Young and the Tiger-Cats want to drive even more people away from the heart of our city using PUBLIC money; stripping the city of it's cash reserves and exhausting our hard-earned future fund, all for their virtually exclusive benefit.

No one blames Bob Young for everything that's wrong with Hamilton. Lord knows there's lots of blame to go around. But the blame for the stadium fiasco lies squarely at his feet. The West Harbour proposal has been around since Hamilton first applied for the COMMONWEALTH games and we heard not a peep from the Tiger-Cats. The ONLY thing that's changed is their last minute refusal to share a stadium's benefit with the rest of us.

Who else COULD you blame?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CY (anonymous) | Posted August 26, 2010 at 22:00:11

The Long wood site isn't in the Business park. It's the steel care building area south bordering the golf course. See the rail yard that's what they are talking about not the Mc Master Property.

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