Raise the Hammer

it isn't worse than building a stadium where the Cats did NOT want to go namely, West Harbour

Give me a frigging break. The Cats did NOT want to stay at Ivor Wynne either, remember? This is nothing but a face saving exercise for Bob Young, Scott Mitchell and company. Even using the Ticats own criteria, IWS is WORSE than the West Harbour. I'm tired of Ticat stooges just agreeing with whatever Bob agrees with from one day to the next.

I just wish the province would step up like this for projects that actually count. Social service costs, LRT, brownfield remediation etc.

This is a lot of money for negligible civic benefit.

Interesting title choice, Ryan - A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with devastating cost to the victor; it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately cause defeat.

I think the reputation of Bob Young and the Mayor has taken a huge blow in this process which is really unfortunate, but true nonetheless. Ultimately, what drives these individuals is a healthy level of ego and no matter what they do from this point forward, they will always be associated with this event and represent the uninspired status quo, not the future, of Hamilton.

I sincerely hope that there is a blow to their reputations! Bob Young staked everything on a last minute gamble to maximize his own revenues. That failed, but as part of his attempt, he flat out refused to play at WH saying it was unacceptable. The sad thing is that almost all of his stated reasons for lack of acceptability were exceeded in all his alternate locations.

Thus far he's been unable to swallow his pride and walk back his refusal, despite being able to do so at Ivor Wynne, which he's also denounced as unacceptable in the past.

The reason it's a Pyrrhic victory is that a huge chunk of money for brownfield recovery has now been lost to refurbish a stadium that could easily have been sold as it doesn't need the cleanup that the WH does. Nor does the refurbishing of IWS spur development the way building at WH would.

Kudos to Bob Young for his determination, but it's a shame that council let themselves be railroaded.

Comment edited by Brandon on 2011-01-31 12:05:06

Perhaps now we can focus on a proper plan for IWS2, one that includes doing transit oriented planning and development for the Soctt Park LRT station and area.

This may be the best way to "city build" around the stadium development and it would go a long way to further the success for the team. A profitable team means more money for the city and we all win.

Remember how ancillary development was a key for the bottom line for the tabbies? Well with no highway nearby, let's now look at using the proposed LRT to do just that for the Tiger-Cats and the entire neighbourhood.

Combining the tho developments (stadium and LRT) should strengthen both, resulting in a transformed neighbourhood. Let's plan the two together.

Wouldn't it be grand for us all if the City would actually get down to business by building the stadium and LRT together, while transforming a neighbourhood! This is unlikely to take place in our life-time.

Here are the negative impacts caused by this unsound decision to spend $150m-$200m on the stadium venture: *Civic apital projects (already on the "list") are now put back at least 5 years *Remediation/revitalization at WH won't happen any time soon *LRT is a pipe-dream that won't happen in Hamilton because council and top city staff have no appetite for it [ie: "oh where will we get the money??"] *Private interest has, once again, dictated bad public policy. Abominable, despicable, and outrageous. I am a glass is half-full person, but this stadium decision has just set Hamilton's renewal back about 15 years.

City would actually get down to business by building the stadium and LRT together, while transforming a neighbourhood! This is unlikely to take place in our life-time.

I think public transit is a PanAm requirement. So I fully expect LRT to be built at the same time as the stadium. Why would you think otherwise?

LRT is a pipe-dream that won't happen in Hamilton because council and top city staff have no appetite for it

Please read this article: http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl...

Private interest has, once again, dictated bad public policy.

Fill that glass a little fuller. The IWS2 project was approved by all council. It will mean jobs for Hamiltonians. And it was the only site with no funding gap.

Remediation/revitalization at WH won't happen any time soon

Not necessarily. In fact, I think now that the stadium decision has been made, it makes sense to move forward with WH remediation. The sooner it can be remediated, and sold to private interests, the sooner we can get back the $10 million from the future fund spent on it already.

Plus, I think public interest in remediating the site has never been higher.

Guys, now is the time for us Hamiltonians to get behind council's decision and move forward with city building.

Comment edited by improvethehammer on 2011-02-01 23:11:49

Well said, Captain.

West Harbour had a funding gap of $50 million, whereas IWS2 had a funding gap of $25 million. Even if the Ticats were on board for WH, we'd still have trouble building at WH.

The economic difference between Ivor Wynne and West Harbour for the Ticats is at best negligible

This has been stated many times. And if true, that begs the question why would the Ticats invest so much time, energy and impact to goodwill for a negligible difference???

It is either one of two things -- to save face, or they don't believe the difference to be negligible. It is too bad we didn't concentrate efforts on allowing them to save face (or to address the financial impact concerns) a lot sooner. The relationship between the Ticats and mayor Fred was clearly divisive. It took new blood to get them to consider IWS again. It's just too bad this productive dialog didn't happen a year ago.

Comment edited by improvethehammer on 2011-01-31 11:34:15

to save face

Don't be surprised, this is VERY personal or alot of the players, read Drew Edwards piece on Scott Mitchell, it would kill him to have to slink back to WH with his tail between his legs after all the big talk, Mayor Bob went with IWS because it means BY and Mitchell get to eat less crow.

it would kill him to have to slink back to WH with his tail between his legs after all the big talk,

Sure, but that's nothing that a 5,000 spot parking lot where the Ticats get all the revenue wouldn't solve. That's an example, there are probably cheaper ways to get them to save face as well. There are ways to deal with big egos.

Comment edited by improvethehammer on 2011-01-31 12:16:49

if we can come up with $25 million for WH

That's the problem. Now that the Province bailed us out for $22.5mil at IWS, do you really think they'll have more left over money for WH? That would be REALLY nice I'll admit but I think it's too much to hope for.

Council is still in camera. There were rumblings the MOU may include something about the WH. Only rumblings though. At least at this point.

If McGuinty is sprinkling pixie dust, he'd be smart to sprinkle some on West Harbour for remediation, talk about winning over the opposition.

I had heard that the Brian Timmis replacement may go to that location, perhaps with the velodrome beside it. That would be interesting to see.

Correction: That would be fucking awesome to see!

A couple urban myths that need to be expose in order to discuss this fairly

1. Capping a brownfield by placing a stadium on top of it should not be considered acceptable remediation. The toxic land remains buried beneath the stadium. The issue of its toxicity is not resolved, rahter it is deferred for future generations to sort out. The former Rheem site and the neighbouring toxic hot spots need to be cleaned, not hidden.

2. An open-air football stadium is not an appropriate catalyst for economic development. It simply is not a draw for urban intensification. Suggestions to the contrary are disingenuous. The economic effect on the area surrounding the stadium would be practically identical regadless of its location.

Sorry ... what is the MOU?

Perhaps a good example of why this site needs to require commentors be registered. Nobody, especially somoeone as involved in her community as AnnMarie, should have to be subjected to this. None of us should have to.

Comment edited by lawrence on 2011-01-31 12:01:36

Yeah but then you've got "hammy" whose registered but still just as rude as the not registered trolls...

I disagree that parking will hurt the neighborhood. The lack of parking is a big problem with IW that has kept suburbanites who demand a suburban experience away from the stadium. Those 1500 parking spots will mean more fans coming to see the Cats, which will mean more business in the neighborhood.

Obviously losing Timmis will and the baseball diamonds is sad for a neighborhood that is already short on greenspace unless you're willing to go all the way to Gage Park, but the parking lots will lead to more (and more affluent) business at the stadium, and that will mean more economic activity for the area. Hopefully that activity will be captured some way... of course, IW's residential location makes that tricky.

If I'm not mistaken, the Timmis area is too small to allow for 1,500 spots of surface parking – even cramming half that into the land would be a stretch. So we're looking at a parking garage – which, while density-friendly, is not particularly cost-effective in low-use scenarios, requiring greater outlay plus the same service, security and maintenance considerations that the stadium will encounter. The City saved $18M by not having the Cats' HQ incorporated into the stadium, but I wonder if it won't end up spending that much anyway in the process of accommodating those 1,500 parking spots.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_it_cost_to_build_a_parking_lot

Maybe they can sell naming rights to the garage.

I was guessing the 1500 was Timmis + Scott Park Field.

All it will mean is that more people will drive in and drive right out after the game. The only reason that having a parking lot at the stadium site is a necessity is to draw in people that want to watch the game live, but don't actually want to be in the area. Otherwise the parking lot can be blocks away from the stadium and people can walk in a few blocks.

Why do you assume they don't want to be in the area? Isn't it simpler to assume these are just people who don't take the bus, and get weirded out by the idea of having to hunt for parking and end up paying a local to park on their front lawn?

Of course there will be a lot of people who are stuck on the area's sketchy reputation, but I'd wager those folks won't come down at all, parking or no parking.

What I was getting at is that you don't need to tear down Timmis to build that parking lot. You only need to tear it down if you want a parking lot next door to the stadium (which is good for the seller of concessions at the stadium). If a lot (or ideally an array of smaller lots) is a five or ten minute walk from the stadium, then people actually might stop at a local business on the way. Or at least grab some street meat. Building that lot will reduce expenditures on local businesses. In and Out. A "driveway to driveway experience" as I've heard some wizard explain it.

Perhaps you create a Brian T replacement on the WH that can be reconfigured as an amphitheatre for concerts!

and nobody came forward with any private monies for IWS2 either yet the rebuild is going to happen

Forum, White Star, Chamberlain Architects, Molinaro Group all were waiting for decisions to be made by the city. Only the city can deal with the OMB issues, as they relate to CN at West Harbour. These groups all came forward stating they would relish the opportunity to being developing. It would take a catalyst, like a Velodrome and/or scalable stadium vision to start the process. Until the City makes a bold decision on behalf of community and city building, these development companies cannot move forward.

I'm really liking this idea of Brian Timmis at WH - It's a 5000 seat stadium right now and if a USL soccer team comes along - they could up the capacity to 7-10k and have their own home on the waterfront!!

I like it too, but it leaves Ward 3 with one less ammenity.

To be honest and correct me if I'm wrong but I've not heard anyone from Ward 3 complaining about losing Timmis as of yet.

To be fair, no one asked anyone in Ward 3 how they felt. They're just tearing it down, end of story.

It's not a complaint, it's an observation.

I like the idea of BT being relocated, but I would love it more if somewhere in Ward 3 they could squeeze a couple of soccer pitches for the community. Maybe throw in a baseball diamond or two. Just saying... (and I live in Ward 3).

Re: M O U S E..as in M..I...C...K...E...Y..did no one else see the humour, poor as it was, intended. I don't know AnnMarie from Alice in wonderland but I trust at least she saw my poor attempt at being funny. ah never mind!

Count me as another one that would be happy to see the velodrome, a BT replacement and possibly an amphitheatre of sorts at the West Harbor. I think those things would make the Ivor Wynne thing worth it, even with the horrible numbers and absolute-zero contribution from the Ti-Cats. This would remidiate the land, and if the developers that came forward for a stadium at West Harbor were serious, surely they would keep their interest if a velodrome, soccer pitch/stadium and amphitheatre took form there. How would a 15, 000 seat stadium be much different? Or even a 5000 seat scalable stadium?

This would also keep interest in the GO stop at James North and would go great with the existing Setting Sail plans.

Y'know, if you read between the ignorant insults and cheap shots, the trolls are onto something.

I would be all for this as well but is anyone in the city or province or Hostco actually talking about doing this or is it just here at RTH?

Brownfield remediation and a velodrome at the WH would be an amazing outcome. I think most WH stadium proponents were most keen on seeing the toxic site cleaned up to the point where private investors could move in. I also think the permanent velodrome is an amazing fit for the WH.

Agreed but I doubt they have left enough money and I don't see anyone else throwing money at Hamilton. Everyone for the IWS sees this as a victory because we get "150M" for 45M... I see it as the CFL/BY just got it for nothing.

Also, where is the 10-20M private investor?

Here's my post from TheSpec.com:By: AlCzervik
Jan 31, 2011 11:29 AM
Bad Deal 
To summarize: -IWS has every negative that the Ticats hated about West Harbour. -This plan involves removing a community soccer stadium and ball diamonds for a parking lot that will be used ten times a year to benefit a private company. -This site perpetuates the image of Hamilton across Canada as a polluted hellhole when seen on TSN. -The price tag for this renovation is somehow more than double the entire construction cost of BMO Field which was a 100% new build. -This plan sucks up the entire Future Fund, while the contaminated brownfield land purchased at the West Harbour sits untouched. -The Ticat's Scott Mitchell has engendered feelings of resentment towards the team in a large portion of the community. -A great opportunity has become a total disaster, how very Hamilton!

I have a question. I am confused as to why so much sound and fury is being generated re: the Memorandum of Undersanding. In my understanding, MOUs are not legally binding or enforceable. Am I wrong?

Apply adaptive reuse for the Rheem building and put the Velodrome inside it. No demolition, no need to remediate that parcel of land. The greenest building is the building already standing. Probably not a sexy enough vision for the Velodrome for most of the community here but I love the re-use of old, industrial and spacious buildings.

I ask again, who with the money is talking about WH development? Or are we talking out our a** and just dreaming?

Nor I am unhappy. Disappointed that so much Staff time and resources were used to come full circle right back to the very location that the Ticats stated made their business financially unvialble. We had several people advocating an Ivor Wynne reno from day 1.

Congrats to Larry! Well done.

Do I think Ivor Wynne is a good location? Not really. Do I think using public money to support a private enterprise is a good thing? Not really. Will I support the Ticats after all this? Not under this ownership.

Council addressed my main concerns today: keeping some recreational fields in Ward 3, trying to nail down specifics in regards to the velodrome, and integrating the Barton Tiffany lands into something useful.

Comment edited by Andrea on 2011-01-31 16:06:10

If he'd "listened to the needs of his tenant" during his tenure, we'd have a stadium in a greenfield on the east mountain surrounded by a sea of several thousand parking spots, a Boston Pizza, a generic hotel and several 6-8 lane widened roads that are empty 80% of the year, lined with wheatfields or townhouse subdivisions.

Well, ok. I guess maybe a Tim Hortons and a McDonalds too, with a drive-thru system that could double as a 4 lane street.

Eat 'em raw.

It's hilarious that this is the kind of crap that so many of the ignorant residents of this city think are "city building initiatives". All that kind of development does is make us look like the several other sleepy suburbs that are between successful cities throughout North America. It's the driveway-to-driveway experience we get, and then we shake our heads in disbelief every time the TV tells us we're getting fat. (Ok I'll stop, this is getting way off-topic)

Comment edited by MattM on 2011-01-31 15:21:26

I wouldn't necessarily call us all unhappy Hamiltonians. I am disappointed that this entire process has gone from an "amateur sports legacy" to something that his been hi-jacked by a professional sports franchise.

I am disappointed that Brian Timmis is being removed and am hopeful that it will be replaced somewhere else in the inner city where proper soccer pitches are sorely needed. Brian Timmis was a bit of an eyesore due to the fence but it was one of the best pitches in the City.

All in all I can say at least the money is staying in the community I guess but at what cost? The Future Fund will be terribly depleted and we may have lost the opportunity for the velodrome which would have enhanced amateur sports in the city.

The level of engagement has been truly exciting and as much as the trolls and naysayers want to bash RTH for the views it has expressed I think that they were necessary as there did not seem to be another media outlet in the City asking any difficult questions. When the hardest questions are coming from a citizen journal/blogsite you have to question the established media a bit.

Congratulations to Ryan and all of the contributors at Raise the Hammer for getting under the skin of the establishment. I am sorry that we have not seen the success that we were hoping for but I think believe that you have definitley got the attention of our politicians and the traditional media.

Absolutely, If it weren't for the RTH crew and OurCityOurFuture we surely would have had East Mountain decision long ago. Council is indebted to this organization for keeping them from that colossal mistake but instead they're bad mouthing them.

" If he'd "listened to the needs of his tenant" during his tenure, we'd have a stadium in a greenfield on the east mountain surrounded by a sea of several thousand parking spots, a Boston Pizza, a generic hotel and several 6-8 lane widened roads that are empty 80% of the year, lined with wheatfields or townhouse subdivisions.
Well, ok. I guess maybe a Tim Hortons and a McDonalds too, with a drive-thru system that could double as a 4 lane street."

Well, no. Because as it turns out he didn't have the $200+ million a brand new stadium anywhere, WH or EM would have cost. IWS turns out to have been the only option all along.

Very true, I was simply addressing what Bob Young outlined as his "needs" originally, which was highway access, visibility and parking above all. These 3 things were symbolized by the East Mountain location more than any other that was ever proposed. I suppose the rest of my rant was un-necessary, but came out as my "anti-suburban" chord is struck every time I even think about EM.

Comment edited by MattM on 2011-01-31 15:32:08

Comment edited by hammy on 2011-01-31 15:38:39

Yeah Hammy, your a regular Nostradumbass..

hahaha - thank you for defusing my reply to hambone.

We should start circulating the idea of building a multilevel parking struture with a green roof that could be passive (plants only) or active whereby it would actually be a public park.

It would take up a smaller amount of land and perhaps even allow the sports/soccer field to stay for community use.

oskee wee wee oskee WTF!, holy mistake-inaw, taxpayers, got eaten raw.

What I'm reading here about Brian Timmis Stadium is not what I remember hearing in council chambers. I'm always up for being corrected, so if I'm wrong fire away.

BTS is not being removed specifically for parking, it's being removed to accommodate the footprint of the new stadium. Their has been no specific location assigned as to where the 1500 parking spots will go. The Ti-Cats wanted the $600,000 a year lease payment to be allocated to paying for the land acquisition and construction of a parking lot 'within a reasonable distance to IWS'. I remember Rob Rossini being concerned about finding land close enough for IWS parking that he suggested HSR shuttle buses from Tiger-Cat controlled lot to the stadium. I found the shuttle buses hilarious because whenever I mentioned them for a WH stadium the Bob Young trolls would shout it down saying they would never go in one.

Once again, correct me if I'm wrong but from what I remember BTS is not being removed specifically for parking and there is no site even purchased yet for parking.

Comment edited by mrjanitor on 2011-01-31 16:29:15

Could be, My earlier comment was in reference to the BTS suggestion that had been made in the thread.

The virtue of having parking at Brian Timmis of course is that there is no associated land cost to building the lot, something that is not insignificant when you consider that by Shoup's measure at least, 1,500 parking spots of undiluted surface parking would run about $6m – and, incidentally, consume about as much land as is bordered by Cannon, Balsam, Beechwood and Melrose. That's a fair bit of land, which would obviously need to be purchased (a parking structure would reduce the footprint but increase the bottom line costs), and if you're eyeing industrial land north of Barton Street for parking, you can add remediation/capping costs to the bargain. I'm going to assume that you could roll the cost of shuttles to the stadium into your parking premium. Or just encourage fans to brave the three blocks from the tracks to the turnstiles.

From what little I heard, they referred to off site parking

That is also my understanding. Seeing as there is no plan in place, I am not sure how costs can be calculated. But regarding the parking - you are correct. To the best of my understandnig the footprint of the new South section will be bigger. Originally, there was talk about utilizing some of the industrial land north of Barton Street for parking, with shuttles to the stadium.

On a more postive note - I am REALLY looking forward to the new market re-opening AND Soupfest tomorrow.

Me too. This mess makes you appreciate the good things in the city.

Regarding Brian Timmis - what's to say the field/pitch of the new IWS couldn't serve the purpose for both types of football?

I've heard Timmis described as the best pitch this side of BMO Field. Why not make it the best pitch in Ontario? (though IMO it would need to be real turf rather than synthetic).

I believe one of the reasons Timmis is disappearing is not only to accommodate additional parking, but because the south grandstand will be rebuilt farther south than the present location to allow a wider runoff area around the field. Therefore it will encroach into the current Timmis location. With the current IWS design there is very little room along the sidelines. It has always been an issue and will certainly be addressed, though one benefit was that fans got to sit very close to the action. The external south side of IWS is also a no-go zone on game days without the correct credentials and I can imagine that the renovation and removal of Timmis will open up this area for additional uses, such as retail, that could operate throughout the year.

It always perplexed me why more events didn't take place at IWS. Perhaps the cost is excessive for field rental? But if the goal is to make IWS more tightly integrated in the community, I feel there must be a greater effort made to make it accessible to community level events. Back a year or two ago when the stadium debate was still fresh, the Spec ran some stories about how European cities have built professional calibre stadiums yet make them publicly accessible on non-game days for community use. While the Ticats practice in IWS on off days, they don't use the field the entire day and late afternoons and evenings are typically available. Why can't we do that here? Taxpayers are paying for this reno, the Cats are the tenants and should share the facility. I'm sure there is a way to accommodate more uses than is currently the case.

Make no mistake, once the pan ams are over and the lines repainted, there will be no professional soccer going on in the new home of the tiger cats. The taxpayers got played, thinking those slugs in cats management have any desire to branch out. We just folded and handed them the pot.

I see mrjanitor beat me to it above - I need to collect my thoughts and type faster!

Just got an email from Brian McHattie and in it this info:

Today, Council unanimously supported Ivor Wynne Stadium as the location for the Pan-Am Games. I wanted to let you know why, in the end, I also supported the Ivor Wynne location.

As you know, I have been very supportive of the West Harbour site from the very beginning of the Pan-Am stadium discussions (voting virtually alone several times against investigation of the east Mountain, McMaster Innovation Park and the CPR Railyard proposed stadium sites, always committing to staying at the West Harbour). Even today, I had prepared a motion to reiterate my previous motion on January 20, to submit a proposal to TO2015 for a 5,000 seat scaleable stadium at the West Harbour, if Council did not approve the redeveloped Ivor Wynne Stadium. As is sometimes the case in politics, at Council today, it quickly became clear that I would not have that opportunity.

Therefore, with much deliberation and soul-searching, I joined City Council in supporting the redevelopment of Ivor Wynne Stadium as the Pan-Am Stadium, which will be designed to be a FIFA-sized soccer field and a football field for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. As we have communicated throughout the Pan-Am discussions, I thought it important to outline my reasons and offer a comment on future opportunities for the West Harbour precinct.

The final cost and revenue arrangement for the Pan-Am stadium at the Ivor Wynne location is much more positive than it was last week. The cost of the rebuilt/new stadium is $152.1M. The City is committing $51.5M ($45M from the Future Fund and $6.5M from City Capital funds, monies that had previously been allocated to fixing Ivor Wynne before the Pan-Am Games was being considered). The contribution from higher levels of government is $91.6M. The Cats are guaranteeing $750K per year or $9M in total from stadium naming rights. There are additional commitments to improving the neighbourhood around the Ivor Wynne area such as a new recreation centre, and additional community use of the combined FIFA soccer/football field. This area is one of the Hamilton Code Red (poverty) neighbourhoods, so it is positive to achieve these benefits and city-wide focus.

In my comments today at Council, I reflected on Council’s original reasons for submitting a bid to be part of the GTA Pan-Am Games. One goal was to replace the aging Ivor Wynne Civic Stadium by taking advantage of provincial and federal funding – the contributions noted above accomplish this goal. A second goal was to achieve a City-building aspect, in other words, act as a catalyst for urban renewal; the West Harbour location adjacent to downtown presented a clear opportunity for this; I hope that redevelopment in the Ivor Wynne precinct will also have some City-building impact. A third and very important goal for me is to emphasize social inclusion benefits; while the West Harbour location (also a Code Red neighbourhood) presented opportunities, I am excited about the Ivor Wynne precinct. Council today implemented an “Ivor Wynne Community Fund” seeded with $2M, and additionally supported over time through revenue sharing with the Tiger-Cats, plus funding to replace the loss of Brian Timmis stadium to build additional Ward 3 parks and sports fields. Those benefits are important for the entire city.

So, what about the West Harbour? The positive news is that we have already committed $10M to secure 14 acres which can be redeveloped. I sit on the City’s Velodrome Committee, and the West Harbour continues to be a very attractive location. Today I moved a motion asking staff to report back on the feasibility of placing additional community sports fields in the West Harbour; this has been identified as a significant need.

I suspect that many of you are as disappointed as me, that the original West Harbour Pan-Am stadium location was not advanced. Over my time on Council, I have come to understand that politics is the art of the possible, and compromise is often the order of the day – those two features of politics are in play in this case. However, positives have been attained and we are now in a good position to facilitate future West Harbour redevelopment. Onward we go!

You beat me to it - I am happy with the Velodrome may yet land in WH. In the end I really just want the harbour front potential to be realized. A facility like this will also foster amatuer cycling communities and hopefully give more kids in the city opportunity.

I am pretty happy that in the end we almost stick to the original number of 45M (~51.5M), even if the 10M in WH is being spun as a "positive".

Comment edited by GrapeApe on 2011-01-31 18:04:17

The Hamilton Spectator website has a link showing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) approved today by Hamilton city council. https://picasaweb.google.com/10284832901...

A good friend of mine is a banker. A client of his, financially ignorant, came having just come into hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The client's wife had made him come in as she wanted him to invest the money through the bank, but the client had a plan.

You see, his boss had made him an offer of partnership! The client would put all of his money into the company and the boss would put his experience and contacts, in return, the client would get a 49% share of the new business.

Celebrations! Until you stop and think about it.

Here is the link to an article titled "It's official: Hamilton council approves stadium plan" by Mark Masters on the National Post website tonight.
http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/01/3...

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2011-01-31 22:21:49

My mother always counseled me not to buy something just because it was on sale, but to consider whether I would be willing to pay full price for said item first. In the case of IWS2, Council found itself at a "going out of business" sale where time was short and the temptation of the "bargain" was just too great. How could they pass it up? Now we wait to see if buyer's remorse sets in, and whether it will be justified. (I admit it: I do have some unworn sale items hanging my closet.)

Grape Ape:

Just wanted to add some information gleaned from today's city council meeting to your recent post about Hamilton paying $51.5 Million toward the Ivor Wynne Stadium refurbishment plan.

Although the Ticats are being credited with a $9 Million capital contribution via their agreement to buy the stadium naming rights from the City of Hamilton in instalments of $775,000 per year, city finance manager Rob Rossini said today that the city has to issue a $9 Million debenture to pay that portion of the upfront stadium construction cost. Therefore, the current estimated upfront stadium construction costs payable by the City of Hamilton would appear to be approximately $60.5 Million.

So while the City is fronting $9m in current dollars, the Cats are on the hook for $9m in $775,000 instalments (roughly 12 seasons, independent of inflation, which amounts to around 25% over that term) presumably starting as soon as they begin playing out of IWS2?

So it's like lay-a-way for a stadium :)

Thanks for the update.

Comment edited by GrapeApe on 2011-01-31 23:26:34

Sure it did. And you've always had nothing but thoughtful conjecture to add.

Here is the link to an editorial titled "Now, bring on the velodrome" by Howard Elliott in today's Hamilton Spectator: http://www.thespec.com/opinion/editorial...

After passing the motion at yesterday's city council meeting to spend $60.5 Million on the Ivor Wynne Pan Am Stadium project, a motion was carried directing city manager Chris Murray to contact the federal Minister of State for Sport, Gary Lunn, to request federal funding for the velodrome similar to the amount of $22.5 Million provided by the Ontario government for the stadium last Sunday. While this makes sense, what happens if the federal government turns down the request?

The original Pan Am financial commitment made by Hamilton city council in February, 2009 was a total of $60 Million comprised of $45 Million for stadium construction, $10 Million to acquire the west harbour lands, and $5 Million for a temporary velodrome. Yesterday, council effectively agreed to spend all of that money on the Ivor Wynne Stadium refurbishment project.

It would therefore appear that, if no federal government funding is forthcoming for the velodrome, Hamilton city council will enter a new debate on whether to spend new monies on a permanent or temporary velodrome.

An interesting side note to yesterday's events is that, according to the National Post article by Mark Masters, the City of Mississauga had withdrawn its interest in the "community-sized" Pan Am soccer stadium sweepstakes earlier in the day. http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/01/3...

This means that, had Hamilton city council kept its Plan B west harbour 5,000 seat scalable stadium option alive, they would have had the option of committing a $18.9 share of the $43 Million estimated stadium construction costs with $26.1 remaining from the original Future Fund stadium construction allocation to pay its share of the cost of a permanent velodrome with some money left over to contribute to incremental improvements to Ivor Wynne Stadium. Even though Hamilton city council would have still probably proceeding with the Ivor Wynne Pan Am Stadium refurbishment project given the recent injection of provincial money, it would still have been prudent for council to at least consider the fact that Hamilton's Plan B no longer faced any competition and would have made municipal available for the permanent velodrome if the federal government turns down their funding request.

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2011-02-01 08:55:41

I'm guessing that mississauga and brampton decided to pull out of this nonsense months ago, but were asked not to say anything. it's been clear that this entire farce has only been about the Ticats. I hope the PanAm visitors can figure out their way to the stadium from the new GO Station at the West Harbour.

Once all the glad handing and back clapping is over, we'll have plenty of time to rue all the things we threw over the side to make the Ticats happy.

This whole adventure sure brought out the bright minds on the spec. Of the many gems I read over the last few months, this one that I read this morning gave me a chuckle:

"City council
should privatize city council - it was mentioned in the beginning that the stadium should be done there...they do know how to waste time nd money."

This guy makes the RTH trolls seem dignified.

Corporate welfare cases always seem to win in the end. And once the deals are signed, what can the public do, other than have our incomes garnished to support it?

In Florida, you should see the cash that the Marlins have extracted from present and future generations of Miami taxpayers.

[http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-marlinsfinancials082410](http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-marlinsfinancials082410)

"The ugliness of the Marlins’ ballpark situation is already apparent, and the building doesn’t open for another 18 months. Somehow a team that listed its operating income as a healthy $37.8 million in 2008 alone swung a deal in which it would pay only $155 million of the $634 million stadium complex. Meanwhile, Miami-Dade County agreed – without the consent of taxpayers – to take $409 million in loans loaded with balloon payments and long grace periods. By 2049, when the debt is due, the county will have paid billions."

Interesting article from The Vancouver Sun. Sums it up pretty well.

http://www.vancouversun.com/Wake+Call/42...

Proline >> Corporate welfare cases always seem to win in the end. And once the deals are signed, what can the public do, other than have our incomes garnished to support it?

It gets better. In recent years (2000 - ), corporations in Canada have gone from being net borrowers to net lenders...

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-210-x/2008000/t014-eng.htm

In fact, from 2000 to 2008, corporations added $383.2 Billion in cash to their balance sheets, around $11.2K per Canadian. In that same period of time, Canadians have taken on $272.1 Billion, or $7.9k per person in debt. From 1961 - 2000, people's savings used to fund corporate investments, now it is corporations funding our credit cards and mortgages.

Curiously enough, this shift in who gets to play banker came at the same time corporations saw their tax rates drop from 28% to 16.5%, federally and provincially from 15.5% (2000 Ontario) to 12% today.

In 2000, our economy was strong and Ontario corporations payed tax rates of 43.5%. Today, our economy is weak and the tax rate for corporations is 28.5%. The only difference is that corporations are sitting on lots of cash and average people are at record debt levels.

Whereas savings used to flow from people to corporations to fund business expansion, savings now flow from corporations to people to buy bigger homes and big screen T.V.'s. Excess cash on corporate balance sheets tells us that the economy is lacking new business opportunities to invest in, which also tells us that corporate tax rates should be raised.

I am still stuck on rscheffler's comment~ re:letter from Brian McHattie,
"We have already committed $10M to secure 14 acres"... at West Harbour...
Am I the only one on here that cannot comprehend that amount of money spent on purchasing contaminated property/single family dwellings???

Danya

Lack of comprehension runs rampant in discussions such as this. I'm not assailing someone's honesty in declaring their own limitations (yes, I'm being glib, yes I'm taking the piss...), just pointing out that to this ardent observer, at some point, the need to launch even as benign a self-righteous salvo as this seems... Well, I'll put it this way: RTH is a mechanism for change. A forum within which an examination of events, of contributing factors to dilemmas that challenge the city can take place. Referring to a theme on my blog of late, part of its effectiveness might be found in 'deliberative dialogue'.

And yet what drags down any discussion is the bandying about of pseudo-facts, faux-statistics, conjecture about this, hypothesizing about that, injection of unmoderated bias and prejudice... It gets a little wearying, doncha think?

There are seemingly endless instances where what goes on at City Hall on myriad fronts are beyond the ken of a casual (and lazy) observer. The purchases of WH land as mentioned in Danya's comment being just one of these instances.

Is it unreasonable to request that not only the Hammer be raised, but the bar of enquiry? So instead of something being tossed as an accusation (against the former mayor), how about framing the issue of these lands having been purchased in a proper question, a salient enquiry?

How about RTH doing a story on this ancillary element to the whole stadium débacle? Or, short of Ryan doing it, why don't impassioned readers...such as Danya...approach their Councillors and begin asking the 'fallout' questions that deserve to be asked, especially as, if IWS will be going forward, what's now in store for WH deserves to be focused on. (I'll be sending this comment to those on Council I have regular contact with, so I'll be walking my own talk.)

Grumbled commentary -no matter how well-intentioned- is fine, expressing it is surely within our individual and collective rights. But doesn't Hamilton deserve more from all of us? Especially here on this site?

And yet what drags down any discussion is the bandying about of pseudo-facts, faux-statistics, conjecture about this, hypothesizing about that, injection of unmoderated bias and prejudice... It gets a little wearying, doncha think?...

You are quite right not to expect these things in the articles and blogs, but in the comment sections? Well, I give you credit for acknowledging your self-righteousness.

It's the internet. We're having a conversation. Do you go around in your daily life demanding that any gathering of humans whether to effect change, or even just to socialize, be completely free of pseudo-facts, faux-statistics, conjecture, hypothesizing, unmoderated bias, and prejudice? You must be great fun at cocktail parties.

How about RTH doing a story on this ancillary element to the whole stadium débacle?

Go for it!

The professional soccer component in the Memorandum of Understanding signed by Mayor Bratina and Bob Young on January 31, 2010 to refurbish Ivor Wynne Stadium needs to be revisited and revised before they sign the Licensing Agreement.

Paragraph 5 in Appendix “A” of the Memorandum of Understanding reads as follows:

“The agreement will provide for the Tiger-Cats to operate a professional soccer franchise in the stadium for the playing of all of the franchise’s home pre-season, regular season and playoff games, except as provided in Paragraph 30. Professional soccer shall mean a franchise playing in the North American Soccer League, United Soccer League or an equivalent professional soccer league. For greater certainty, ownership/operation of the soccer academy by the Tiger-Cats shall include ownership through a related corporation provided that such corporation is owned or controlled by Robert Young.” https://picasaweb.google.com/10284832901...

Conspicuous by its absence in the wording of this paragraph is the Major Soccer League. It is superior to rather than the equivalent of the North American Soccer League or the United Soccer League. It therefore appears that Bob Young does not contemplate bringing a Major Soccer League franchise to Hamilton during his 20 year stadium lease.

What happens if another entrepreneur expresses a willingness to pay the $40 Million expansion fee and apply for a Major Soccer League franchise in Hamilton? It would be unconscionable for Hamilton to pay $60.5 Million toward building the stadium and be prevented from having a Major Soccer League team for the first 20 years because Bob Young has an NASL or USL team playing in the stadium. This scenario needs to be clearly addressed in the Licensing Agreement.

An example of a compromise would be to give Bob Young an exclusive five year option to pursue a Major Soccer League franchise and, if he chooses not to pursue it within the five year timeline and another entrepreneur wants to bring a Major Soccer League team to Hamilton, the city shall have the right to negotiate and sign a stadium lease with the MSL entrepreneur. This gives Young five years for his NASL or USL franchise to sink or swim or to acquire an MSL franchise while giving Hamilton a chance to seek an MSL franchise during years six to twenty of the lease.

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2011-02-02 22:21:44

Could I impose upon you to send your comment to Council? I've already made references to the City legal department being astute on Ticat matters in my correspondence to Council, but your observation holds much more water.

Of course, the Ti-cats will maintina, insist even, that season ticket numbers are up, that they're showing "tremendous growth", but I cannot see how they would be, not with the "Scorched Earth" PR policy employed by Scott (the Pitbull) Mitchell...I also predict that the actual attendance figures for each game (except for Toronto) will go down...

Having moved to Hamilton from Toronto, I gamely tried to become a Ti-cat fan, but the Dog & Pony show known as Scott Mitchell and Bob Young have cured me of that...no more IWS for me...I'll hop on the GO Train and gladly give my custom to the Argos...

LOLZ

http://www.thespec.com/news/canada/article/481189--majority-opposes-federal-funds-for-stadiums-arenas-poll

Haha! I just finished reading that myself. It is interesting to hear what the majority really thinks.

The issue of publicly funded pro-sports stadiums is being faced by many cities in Canada, not just Hamilton.

highwater,

I have found that mystoneycreek only swoops down from the lofty heights he/she exists in to scatter bon-mots of his/her greater insights and criticisms to the prols here in the depths of RTH. Once the droppings have been left for us to ponder upon, msc leaves to reside back on the perch of higher consciousness and meaning, ever watchful for when his/her intervention is again required at RTH. To request msc to do something as grotty as write an article is disrespectful sir!!

Funny. That is a good critique of some of the more pompous opinions that can prevail on RTH. It reminds me of the raging debate over "anarchists" Skydragon gang vs "fatcat" James St N merchants. I generally come down on the side of the left leaning theory, but get so turned off by the method.

"I agree with everything you say, yet object to the way you say it!"

NFL owners want guarantees no other business provides
By Sally Jenkins
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 17, 2011; 12:09 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021603846.html

Excerpt:

"The owners are lucky that the collective bargaining process is so convoluted, and the language of their argument with the players is hard to understand. Because when you peel away the headachy legal terms and expose their real position, it can be summed up very simply: They believe they are entitled to make money every year, even in the midst of disastrous recessions. They think they are owed a living.

They also think your money is actually their money. Or at least, it used to be yours, before you paid it at the box office, paid it at the concessions, paid it in the parking lot, and paid it in countless other ways - from those deplorable "seat licenses" to tax breaks and public funds for new stadiums and renovations, where they can charge you even more.

What are owners really owed in return for their investments? That's what fans must decide, in weighing whose side to support in the impending lockout and labor impasse, which, judging by the belligerent maneuvering of the past week now, likely will last many months and disrupt next season. The core issue is this: Owners resent the fact that a lot of your money is going into the pockets of players, instead of into their own."