Comment 57805

By matthewsweet (registered) | Posted January 24, 2011 at 18:07:38

So McHattie wanted an amendment which said should sufficient funding not be secured for the IW plan, that Hostco continue to consider the WH proposal as submitted. It was defeated mostly on the grounds that councilors didn't want to send mixed messages or sound undecided.

Ferguson's main motion included a note about rescinding the West Harbour plan as part of the motion to direct staff to pursue the IW plan up to a cap of $45 million from the City. In discussion on this point, I believe it was concluded that this was separate from the submission sent last week to Hostco for the WH scalable stadium, and rather places the IW plan as the preferred plan currently.

Comment edited by transitstudent on 2011-01-24 18:08:18

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools