Comment 46874

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 31, 2010 at 13:53:19

While I believe that the West Harbour is a far superior site to Longwood, I think I could live with it, especially if they route LRT on the south side of the 403 and then north along Longwood back to Main.

In any event, my major concern here is that we might just be being setup again. Despite Bob Young's letter, there's no guarantee that this site will work for the Tiger-Cats AND McMaster AND the City. And what if it doesn't?

Without a "default" position, it's definitely in Young's best interest to pull another last minute double-cross and say "Oh well, Longwood didn't work it's off to one of my favoured car-centric, downtown-killing sites". This might well be simply a stalling tactic until after October's election.

I take no comfort in the "mutually agreeable to the city and the Tiger-Cats" clause because to gutless windmills like Whitehead, Jackson and, heaven forbid, DiIanni "mutually agreeable" means anything the Tiger-Cats demand.

We already know that the West Harbour is satisfactory to HostCo with the Tiger-Cats as tenants. In order to force Young to pursue Longwood "in good faith" and avoid a repeat of recent history, Council needs to require that he agree to the West Harbour as the "fallback" position. Without that commitment, it's in his best interests NOT to make this work.

I realize that some people will say "but that gives the City the upper hand". Precisely, we're the ones who are paying the bill.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds