Comment 55614

By myrcurial (registered) - website | Posted January 11, 2011 at 12:39:16

@Zephyr

(I can't get over how often discourse turns to 'awesome' here, despite the substantial number of (-:|3 (asshats) here)

Ok, so you managed to convince one boomer that it's better to have something that is neighborhood integrated. Well done, except you've still lost. As a strawman - I wish I had time to do the research now but I don't - there are 2 boomers and 1 greatest voting against your one vote.

I challenge you to tell me why the West Harbour site is better in any dimension than the renovation of IWS? Given the explanation that it was only due to the warm-up field requirement 20-acres (which I argue has always been available in brownfield land adjacent to IWS) that kept a renovated IWS out of the equation until 90 minutes ago... why would we choose to let the IWS site go fallow and further depress the area?

Has not the real red-herring in all of this been the West Harbour site (which I supported publicly) given that the requirement for warm-up fields hasn't been a requirement for a while?

And very selfishly, why can't we all choose to be happy that at least we're not facing 'yet another departure from Hamilton'?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds