Comment 54692

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted January 06, 2011 at 08:28:22

First off, great article/editorial, Ryan. Nicely executed.

Secondly, it makes me sad when things get murky, when a discussion veers. (This is why in couples' counselling, 'Stick to the topic' is the constant admonition.) While I'm not happy at all with how things have unfolded in this PanAm Games stadium site selection process, I don't think it's appropriate to slag off a business owner for looking out for his interests. If you want to demonize anyone, it would be more reasonable to examine how the City's interests were handled here. (While I am fundamentally against suburban stadiums, if a team owner and investors can find a way to build one where they want one...independent of municipal contributions...more power to them. If Aldershot works for them on a business level, and Hamilton isn't going to be funding it, that's fine by me. It may rankle Ti-Cats fans, but if they won't travel the additional distance...out of spite or whatever...then that's their decision to make. As Ryan points out, they'll be replaced in the stands by fans with more disposable income. That may not seem 'fair', but it's capitalism, and that's what we've embraced.)

Finally, I love Andrea's lateral thinking. (Though not her opening sentiments.) I love it mostly because it restores the focus to where it should be: on our commitment to the Games.

Oh, and as for the IWS lands; it's already been pointed out by wesntworthst that the area is currently deflated real estate value-wise, so it's not like we'd be able to instantly cash in the land for a tidy profit.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds