There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?
Recent Articles
- Justice for Indigenous Peoples is Long Overdueby Ryan McGreal, published June 30, 2021 in Commentary
(0 comments)
- Third-Party Election Advertising Ban About Silencing Workersby Chantal Mancini, published June 29, 2021 in Politics
(0 comments)
- Did Doug Ford Test the 'Great Barrington Declaration' on Ontarians?by Ryan McGreal, published June 29, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- An Update on Raise the Hammerby Ryan McGreal, published June 28, 2021 in Site Notes
(0 comments)
- Nestlé Selling North American Water Bottling to an Private Equity Firmby Doreen Nicoll, published February 23, 2021 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- Jolley Old Sam Lawrenceby Sean Burak, published February 19, 2021 in Special Report: Cycling
(0 comments)
- Right-Wing Extremism is a Driving Force in Modern Conservatismby Ryan McGreal, published February 18, 2021 in Special Report: Extremism
(0 comments)
- Municipalities Need to Unite against Ford's Firehose of Land Use Changesby Michelle Silverton, published February 16, 2021 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Challenging Doug Ford's Pandemic Narrativeby Ryan McGreal, published January 25, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- The Year 2020 Has Been a Wakeup Callby Michael Nabert, published December 31, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- The COVID-19 Marshmallow Experimentby Ryan McGreal, published December 22, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- All I Want for Christmas, 2020by Kevin Somers, published December 21, 2020 in Entertainment and Sports
(1 comment)
- Hamilton Shelters Remarkably COVID-19 Free Thanks to Innovative Testing Programby Jason Allen, published December 21, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- Province Rams Through Glass Factory in Stratfordby Doreen Nicoll, published December 21, 2020 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- We Can Prevent Traffic Deaths if We Make Safety a Real Priorityby Ryan McGreal, published December 08, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(5 comments)
- These Aren't 'Accidents', These Are Resultsby Tom Flood, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(1 comment)
- Conservation Conundrumby Paul Weinberg, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Defund Police Protest Threatens Fragile Ruling Classby Cameron Kroetsch, published December 03, 2020 in Special Report: Anti-Racism
(2 comments)
- Measuring the Potential of Biogas to Reduce GHG Emissionsby John Loukidelis and Thomas Cassidy, published November 23, 2020 in Special Report: Climate Change
(0 comments)
- Ontario Squanders Early Pandemic Sacrificeby Ryan McGreal, published November 18, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
Article Archives
Blog Archives
Site Tools
Feeds
By ROI (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 12:34:52
“The big improvement” [of Ivor Wynne] over west harbour or east Mountain options is “simple costs.”
-Bob Young
If the only remaining issue for Bob Young is costs (not location), then I think the stadium decision has to based on what is the best return on investment for the Hamilton Future Fund dollars. Further, at tonight’s meeting there will likely be a request of staff to bring back a report on costs associated with Ivor Wynne before the Feb 1st deadline so there is an opportunity now to ask staff to review the two proposals together. There are a few issues here:
I would look hard at the Deloitte business plan that was presented to Council last February (http://hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/DC3BBCD6-82D8-45C1-AB04-B2B108A9087B/0/Feb18CM09006brevised.pdf).
It pointed a way to get to a 20,000 seat stadium without ANY contribution from the ticats (there was a mix of naming rights revenue, ticket surcharge, etc.) – Page 56. To get to a 25,000 seat stadium, there was a funding gap of $38-$51 million. This included a budget of $26M for site acquisition and remediation which is large completed so those costs are already sunk into the project. Also, this doesn't include the tax uplift that would occur in the surrounding region due to development and the establishment of a GO/VIA node, nor does it include the costs raised from the sale of land not needed after the games (e.g. the practice track land that is no longer needed with no track and field).
I would suggest getting staff to report back on BOTH proposals side by side so that the full costs of the Ivor Wynne proposal are considered (demolition costs, etc.).
Other considerations:
* The Deloitte business plan projected that the larger stadium would generate $4.1 million in tax revenues a year for senior governments (page 63) so this could lead to a case for additional money from senior governments (they were willing to kick in some during the CP debate).
* The Future Fund dollars were dedicated to this project based on the transformative impact of the west harbour location. Does Ivor Wynne achieve this objective?
Getting staff to report back on the detailed costs of BOTH proposals is the most responsible way forward now that location is not the issue.
Permalink | Context