Comment 53453

By H+H (registered) - website | Posted December 21, 2010 at 13:03:13

Desmond

So far the compromise you're preaching looks like this....

Taxpayers put up 95% of the money and the Ti Cats tell us where to put it.

That's some kind of compromise.

And Trey, as much as I am not a supporter of Confederation Park as the site, I genuinely appreciate the quality of your post. Too be honest, I'm still pushing city building benefits, and I don't just mean psychic benefits such as we still have a CFL team. No transit, no Go train, no way to get there easily unless by car, no critical mass that at least has the potential to have a ripple effect on other types of businesses, including current and future hotels, etc. Confederation Park as a site for the stadium, in my opinion, just doesn't provide enough benefits to the non-football going public.

Inner city kids programs held in the outer city with no transit connections to speak of is but one example. Remember, IWS stadium was booked as a city facility for kids, students, cultural groups for over 200 days this year. Sure, I guess we could try to reach that same level of non-Ti Cat use at Confederation Park, but I worry about how that might work.

gcrawford

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds