Comment 43675

By red24 (registered) | Posted July 19, 2010 at 17:52:09

"the team's refusal to commit to the West Harbour means the Province will opt to locate the Pan Am stadium elsewhere."

I would like to see where this has been publicly stated. Or maybe it has only been privately stated to Mr. Young.

I know Ian Troop of HOSTCO mused about bid books changing after the games being awarded if no deal can be made with the Ticats, but this is pretty terrible way to make public policy. Essentially the Province has handed the keys over to the Ticats and subverted the City's authority to make decisions about spending its own money and its own priorities (in policy domains that are clearly under municipal jurisdiction).

Initially I thought it was a thinly-veiled threat to get the two sides talking, but if it's become Provincial policy, then somebody should be button-holing the Premier to get the real story. Frankly, the threat itself is useless unless there is some doubt about whether the stadium would be lost or not.

This raises other questions, however. What are the Province's criteria for a legitimate legacy? What other legacy visions were assessed (the term vision really flatters the Ticats proposals)? Who made the decision that the Ticats would be the primary legacy use?

red24

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds