Elections
Should we spend the Future Fund to build a Pan Am / Ticat stadium on the CP Rail Yard lands? Why or why not?
Responses to the question: "Should we spend the Future Fund to build a Pan Am / Ticat stadium on the CP Rail Yard lands? Why or why not?"
In This Page:
3 Candidate Responses (top)
| Ward 06 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Behrens, Chris | No | Hamilton's future fund should not go towards a new stadium. The funding for the stadium should come from those who have a keen interest in building one, and investing in it. If the Tiger Cats feel that Ivor Wynne is not working for them, then they should fund it and own it.
Hamiltonians really want improved infrastructure; in fact most feel that the city is ignoring their calls for improvements to our infrastructure, and would be satisfied fixing our flooding issues, our broken water mains and roads before we build a stadium. |
| Knowles, Steven | No | I am still uneasy about the rail lands. I think that project will be more work then it is worth at this time. That location has high visibility but I don't believe it is ready for that much traffic. |
| Yan, Nathalie Xian Yi | No | I am against subsidizing the Pan Am from the beginning. Actually I have done extensive research regarding this issue.
Many people think that sports teams have a magical "multiplier effect" upon the local economy. The thinking is that they increase economic activities, create more jobs, increase tax revenues, generate higher incomes and are a more attractive environment for future business prospects. In fact, money spent on professional sports tickets comes at the expense of spending on other activities - movies, concerts or dining out. Taxpayers' subsidies for sports teams do not have a net beneficial economic effect. Ironically, the salaries make up most of a team's expenditures, but the players most often do not live in the city in which they play, therefore the result is that much of the money consumers pour into tickets ends up getting spent in other cities. Even worse, a subsidy for an arena will put taxpayers in hock for decades. The now-demolished Giants stadium in New Jersey still has US $110 million in debt taxpayers must still pay off; in Seattle, the Kingdome demolished one decade ago is still pulling tax dollars away from citizens with US $80 million debt. The proponents usually resort to emotional arguments. Such made-up psychological "wounds" are nothing in comparison the actual fiscal damage. |
Response Summary (top)
| Brief Response | Count | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 0 | 0.0% |
| No | 3 | 100.0% |
| Maybe | 0 | 0.0% |
3 Candidates Have Not Responded (top)
| Ward 06 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Febers, Michelle | ||
| Jackson, Tom | ||
| Pecyna, Ed | ||
