Comment 49199

By H+H (registered) - website | Posted October 11, 2010 at 17:10:27

Robbie K.

I think your analysis of Bob Young's strategy is correct, but it's your statement, "It is those further away people he is hoping to bring in, by turning the TiCats into a more regional draw (which honestly is a GOOD thing for Hamilton)." I think is the fundamental problem.

According to Bob Young's wince-inducing letter, he states, "We are not talking about an Art Gallery or an office building with a few hundred or a few thousand visitors over the course of a day. We are talking about a large audience venue where we need to get 25,000 or more people to the venue within an hour or two of the game, and home again as quickly as possible."

I'll say he's not talking about an Art Gallery. At least people who go to the Art Gallery of Hamilton might stay and spend some money. His business model, as expressed in his letter, is to get them in and out fast. Unless, of course, they choose to hang around and visit Bobby'sWorld for a drink and some Ti-Cat wings.

The amount of money these out-of-towners, using their oh-so-convenient in and out privileges, spend in the City of Hamilton, other than their tickets at the stadium built with our money ($60 million++), and paid for by us to operate ($300,000 per year), and that produces no commercial taxes ($0), will be negligible, I suspect. So much for supporting the local economy. Bob not only takes money away directly from taxpayers, he proposes to ensure out-of-towners don't leave any money here either.

Are we still thinking this is a good thing for Hamilton? I don't think the so-called benefits come close to the level of investment we are being asked to make.

Comment edited by H+H on 2010-10-11 16:35:31

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds