Comment 43454

By Kiely (registered) | Posted July 16, 2010 at 09:42:54

Kiely makes some interesting points then contradicts himself. He is a hypocrite. If stadia are not good for cities, they are not good for the west harbour either. The west harbour can be cleaned up regardless of any stadium construction.

I specifically say I support a temporary facility at the West Harbour. The only reason I support that at all is because I do believe it would have a negative impact on Hamilton to withdraw from the Pan Am games altogether, (although I admit that could be debated as well). So in my view we are on the hook for a facility for the Pan Am games. A temporary facility will not have the on-going costs of a permanent structure.

The fact remains that $60 million dollars of local public money is going to be spent on building a stadium. The question is do we want to promote more urban sprawl, or rejuvenate a brownfield and improve the waterfront? - The Essential Point

That is the question. I agree we probably are going to spend the money. Forget the economic benefits or what will make the Ti-Cats viable, none of that is guaranteed. What we are buying is either a cleaned up brownfield or a catalyst for urban sprawl… take your pick.

A downtown stadium connected to GO Transit actually could bring entertainment spending money into the city from outside it. - nobrainer

I have no doubt it could nobrainer, but we need to be careful not to get in our heads that it will no matter what, and that it will be enough economic benefit to justify the construction and on-going maintenance costs.

Thanks for the info Tartan Triton.

Comment edited by Kiely on 2010-07-16 08:54:11

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools