Comment 46192

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted August 24, 2010 at 14:04:49

I hadn't seen WH as a socialist stadium site, although can see where WH might be a fertile ground for that sort of perception, given that the site connects with so many other urban agendas, whereas EM seems like a state-financed power centre at best. But many commenters have simply been able to employ the Cats' own yardstick – that of "sound business sense" – on a build that, in terms of private sector buy-in, is just as insubstantial as WH. You can throw darts at the map all the live-long day and I doubt that the private sector would ever discover a site that they felt could fly without two-thirds of cost being covered by the public. And yet apparently still not share the organization's own business plan or operating costs with their project partners.

Then there's the tragic miscalculation of opening up site discussion at the tail-end of the selection process. If it took two years of lead time to make a flawed business plan, why would anyone expect any better from a compressed window of two months or two weeks? WH has been the city's favoured site for the stadium that would replace IWS since the first Commonwealth Games bid, circa 2002. This has been public knowledge for as long as BY has owned the team, as has the decrepit state of IWS. And yet through three mayoral administrations and over several years of decay and dismay, neither the Cats not the City has done much of anything to seriously address this problem. Law of inertia.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds