Comment 46233

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted August 25, 2010 at 11:59:22

cd: “Fred's used the expression "socialist stadium" as a nice way to introduce vital political divisions into the debate.”

NB: I actually said “I hadn't seen WH as a socialist stadium site,” in reaction to its being painted as a leftist sports venue in an earlier post. Admittedly, I wasn’t crystal clear.

My intent was not to set up a dichotomy or stir any ideological pot but rather to suggest that regardless of its shortcomings, the WH proposition seems to hold value for many different groups for a lot of different reasons, whereas regardless of its of its shortcomings, the EM proposition seems to hold value principally for two groups of people: the company and its customers.

I think most people accept the notion of constructing a stadium using 2/3 public funds. Constructing a massively publicly subsidized profit generator for a self-confessed chronically insolvent private sports entertainment business may be another thing entirely. Especially when virtually all benefits accrue to that project partner. At least the feds and the province stand a chance of making some of their stake back via HST.




Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds