Comment 49198

By I want answers (anonymous) | Posted October 11, 2010 at 17:04:21

Excellent analysis. I would like to see answers to all 21 of these points...and I would like to add one of my own: After Council had voted for the West Harbour site for the stadium, why did staff present a report to hostco that said the stadium site wouldn't work? They basically said "Citizens and Council want West Harbour, but since the Ticats don't want it, we don't think it will work"

This is not an insignificant point as they went against the democratic will of citizens and represented the interests of the Ticats and have not been held to account for it. This might also explain the quality of the current deal in front of us. It is not staff's job to choose the stadium site. It is their job to take the choice of citizens and develop a model that works. In effect, staff made sure West Harbour failed and now we are backed into a corner over the CP site with a deal that looks worse and worse with every draft.

THIS IS NOT HOW YOU RUN A SUCCESSFUL CITY!

For once I would like to see the decision of citizens actually determine the future direction of the city. Every time big issues close out the public and go to internal discussions between staff and private interests, we get poor decision-making that sets our city back years. Think of the Red Hill floodway, Aerotropolis, all the big-box developments, and now the stadium.

Mr. Crawford's points are well-thought out, reasoned, practical, and and heart of it, are guided by a sense of the "public" interest. Is it too much to ask for the same from City Hall?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds