Raise the Hammer
By Terry Whitehead
Published February 20, 2013
Recent local commentary has been criticizing Councillor Jason Farr for his impromptu press conference providing Global Spectrum's concerns as it pertains to a downtown casino. I find some of the language and criticism harsh and not appreciating the full context.
As an individual who has been quite open to allocation for a casino, and after reflecting on the issue over the weekend, I believe that the criticisms of Councillor Farr are unfounded. Councillor Farr did accurately express the views of Global Spectrum in response to his questions.
Councillor Farr has taken a strong position for the casino not being downtown. He continues to champion the concerns of his constituency and had every right to shed more light on this divisive issue. If I was in Jason's seat, I would have done exactly the same thing.
The criticism should be focused on Global Spectrum, who willingly and knowingly provided the answers to Councillor's Farr's question and were aware that their position would be made public.
In my opinion, Global Spectrum should have been aware of the debate around the downtown casino and should have placed a call to City staff to further understand the context in which this debate is taking place. For Global Spectrum to now shut off direct access to media and other inquiries clarifying their position is not prudent.
In time, I have found Councillor Jason Farr a hard worker and a man of integrity who strongly fights on behalf of his constituents. Kudos to Jason Farr.
By Conrad664 (registered) | Posted February 20, 2013 at 10:24:15
Farr should of told GS about this a long time ago .. not after they sigh the contract
By Darnoc (anonymous) | Posted February 20, 2013 at 13:12:16 in reply to Comment 86519
I think your rong. I dont think it was Farr's rasponsebility to tel1 them anything. its should be up t0 the buisness peepole themselfes to due their do diligince of finding out about stuff like this. i think faar was in the wright to say a quote of there email to the publick
By Conrad664 (registered) | Posted February 22, 2013 at 13:33:55 in reply to Comment 86528
Dont you think Globel has enough to do beside fallowing Hamilton City Hall everry move , i dont think so
By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted February 20, 2013 at 11:58:03 in reply to Comment 86519
I don't believe Farr was personally involved in negotiating or drafting the contract.
Do you mean that City staff should have told GS about this a long time ago?
By Conrad664 (registered) | Posted February 20, 2013 at 12:01:35 in reply to Comment 86525
Yes City staff
By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted February 20, 2013 at 13:28:12 in reply to Comment 86526
Well then, I can't disagree with that. I think City staff probably should have disclosed a potential casino to all bidders, assuming the city knew enough about the OLG modernization strategy at the time to know that a larger casino might be developed in Hamilton during the term of the contract.
By Shea (anonymous) | Posted February 20, 2013 at 14:35:33
Terry Whitehead writes, "Recent local commentary." That may very well be. But you're going to have to be a little more specific, Terry: at least say, even in general, "recently" WHERE: radio? the daily paper? weeklies? RTH? I realize you may not want to cast aspersions or accuse by innuendo. But if you agoing to post your concerns in a place with readers such as those who read RTH, I for one will ask the question that I have here. One of the questions that RTH postings have recently addressed re Spec Letters and RTH postings, e.g., is "How do you know?" When I finish reading your concern, I should have some idea of the answer to that question which in this case is probably very easy for you to tell us.
By Frances (anonymous) | Posted February 20, 2013 at 17:40:49
I agree with Terry Whitehead. Jason Farr does work hard on behalf of his constituents.
By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted February 20, 2013 at 21:28:53 in reply to Comment 86548
By mrgrande (registered) | Posted February 21, 2013 at 08:22:13 in reply to Comment 86555
Generally, I disagree with a lot of what he says and does.
For example?
By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted February 21, 2013 at 21:45:08 in reply to Comment 86571
By Troll Poison (anonymous) | Posted February 21, 2013 at 09:14:20 in reply to Comment 86571
Feeding a troll is like feeding a gremlin water after midnight.
By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted February 21, 2013 at 21:43:10 in reply to Comment 86577
By Conrad664 (registered) | Posted February 24, 2013 at 19:58:59 in reply to Comment 86610
Dern tootin! New one wants to fed trulls on dis her site.
By Ward 2 Lady (anonymous) | Posted February 20, 2013 at 20:08:41
I feel as if I've stepped into an alternate reality. Whitehead sending kudos to Farr?! This may be the only time I ever agree with Whitehead.
By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted February 21, 2013 at 01:17:09 in reply to Comment 86550
I hear that. Farr is a solid councillor and a much needed breath of fresh air on council.
By Terry Whitehead (anonymous) | Posted February 22, 2013 at 12:55:37
Spectator Blog, CHML talk show and some e-mails I have received have provide misguided criticisms of Jason Farr. I felt it was important to challenge these criticisms through my comments. Regardless of what side of the debate you find yourself on, respect for ones views needs to prevail. I believe the unnecessary attacks on Jason Farr is frankly an attempt to muzzle him on expressing his point of view. I do not think that serves democracy in anyway!
By Voice of Fire (anonymous) | Posted February 25, 2013 at 08:08:51
Re-The Tivoli property and the pending sale of the street portion of said proptery.How does Mr.Farr justify keeping the $450,000.00 taxpayer supported liability on the inner potion of this white elephant,while selling off the street portion to a "developer"?"If the property is to be severed how come this is allowed with other councilors out of the loop?And further why is this exclusive deal being discussed soley with the husband of the charity recipient?Will the property go on the open market or be sold quietly under the guise of protecting the Tivoli?Please lets give Mr.Farr a chance to explain this"deal?"
By Kiely (registered) | Posted February 25, 2013 at 18:33:44 in reply to Comment 86706
Ya, that deal is a rotting fish.
You must be logged in to comment.
There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?