Comment 55606

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 12:26:02

@myrcurial -

Good post, thanks :)

I'm not sucking lemons - this is not a done deal. No motion has passed council. West Harbour remains an option. People who think Hamilton can do better still have the option of writing city council (I already have) and still have the option of attending the council meeting tomorrow.

As for the boomer argument, interesting. My father is a baby boomer. He initially fell for the "driveway to driveway" argument and supported the EM option. But when presented with the benefits of the WH, and examples of other communities that have successfully built on their waterfront (like Pittsburgh), he bought into the WH vision. He no longer supports using this PanAm opportunity solely to keep the Ti-Cats in Hamilton.

In fact my father - like many, many other boomers I have spoken to-takes great exception to the way in which Bob Young has held this city hostage.

Let's not insult the intelligence of an entire generation. I think many are smart enough to see through this charade. If IWS works for Bob's business (as far as highway access, signage, etc. that were so vital a few short months ago), then so would the WH. Perhaps this was never about - gasp - highway access and signage. Perhaps its about parking lots and entertainment precincts being controlled by a private business, while public money builds a stadium to attract fans to these spin-off businesses.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds