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:
56 Candidate Responses (top)
| Mayor | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Baldasaro, Michael James | No | The Future Fund should not be used to build a Pan Am / Ticat stadium on the CP Rail Yard lands, especially in light of our $120,000,000 deficit for 2010 and the fact that I heard, first hand, from the Tiger Cat Football Clubs Vice President that Ivor Wynne was good for another 25 years. In reality, it should last a lot longer seeing as concrete takes 100 years to cure before it even starts to deteriorate.
In any event, we have at least another 20 years to save up to pay for a new stadium. The 10 million the Club is offering leaves us still short 30 to 40 million and that is not enough. As you can see in this documentary video below, when I spoke with some of the footballers the response I got was to put some parking across the street in the vacant Scott Park School and adjacent yard. Ivor Wynne is a Win-Win-Win: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VKrl_XeHeM |
| Bratina, Bob | No | A moot point. The CP site has unfunded extra costs of between $40 and $70 million, including things like business relocation. A stadium here does not meet the test of best and highest use in view of its potential relationship to Innovation Park. |
| Butani, Mahesh P. | Maybe | If the community was enthusiastically agreeable to use the Future Funds for the Pan Am / Ticat stadium on the West Harbour lands, then in all fairness, it should be agreeable for it being used on the CP Rail yard lands.
If the Future Fund's use is now being questioned - it is primarily for the reasons that the political process that we have presently, broken or otherwise - somehow, ended up with the CP Rail Yards land over the West Harbour lands. The core issue here is not the stadium, but the location which some are not happy with. On the merits of the location, as someone who has decades of planning, design and architecture experience, I will say this: in time, we will come to appreciate the wisdom of the CP lands over the WH lands for a sports facility. But presently, we should allow the process to unfold, without casting any further aspersion on it. This is only because as a community, we have allowed ourselves to get traumatized over this issue, and we need a closure on this matter to move forward. However, I should emphasis that it is my firm belief that any use of the Future Fund should be in the form of loans and not grants. |
| Di Ianni, Larry | No | Regardless of where the stadium is built, I would not 'use' Future Fund money to build it. Instead, money from the Future Fund would take the form of a loan that would be paid back over time. This would ensure that the Future Fund is available for generations to come. The city should never be the primary funder for any development project. Hamilton needs a stadium that we can afford. To make it feasible, we need support from the federal and provincial government as well as the private sector. Thus far, the City has not involved the private sector as much as we should. This sentiment has been expressed by both senior levels of government in recent weeks. |
| Eisenberger, Fred | Yes | My preferred location for the stadium is well-known. The West Harbour presented the best opportunity for revitalizing the city and was endorsed by the entire city council numerous times over several years. However, since the main legacy tenant rejected that location late in the process we needed to find a compromise.
The CP rail lands location meets some of our city building objectives and meets the main criteria of the legacy tenant, which is to be near a highway. Along with development of the West Harbour location, this compromise allows us to move forward and realize the potential of the Pan Am initiative. The genius of our political system is that it is biased toward compromise. Often the compromise option is the strongest. The Future Fund is for legacy projects in the city and the Pan Am facilities - the stadium and the velodrome - are going to be long-lasting legacies for the community and so I wholeheartedly support the use of the fund for this legacy purpose. |
| Graydon, Edward H.C. | No | The answer is "NO" the stadium on long wood is a terrible sight for Hamilton. I believe "it will kill" the realestate values in that area of the city. Most of all there is no area to allow for retail, it is not a destenation point and never will be.That site will not bring prosperity to the area or the city the way the west harbour would have been able. The future fund should be running away from supporting this possible location.
"Kill it" before it happens. |
| Haines, Andrew | No | No, we should not. We have more important responsibilities, like feeding clothing and sheltering or poorest citizens.
Giving our poor a chance at having a real future is more important than building anew stadium with the future fund. ESPECIALLY when you consider that our Current City Council HAD an offer of FREE MONEY from the Feds and the Province, yet our Council gave the upper levels of government a hard time. Despite the powers that be; giving Hamilton extension after extension, our City Council has STILL managed to find a way of screwing things up for all of us! Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a new stadium built to house our Tiger Cats, I just think that taking care of each other is more important. |
| Hamilton, Glenn | No | The money should be loaned and paid back as per the original mandate of the fund. The balance of the money for the project must come from Federal, Provincial and private sources. The TiCats must stay here because they are responsible for millions of dollars of Hamilton promotion each year on the global stage. Hamilton needs to be recognized! |
| Leach, Ken | No | The future fund should not be used to build a stadium. However, the funds could be used to finance the development with a repayment schedule. The ability of the fund to aid in development of the city is contingent for the future growth of the city.
With that being said, I find the CP Rail Yard choice of location to be pitiful. If council decides to move forward with the Aberdeen/Longwood site, I strongly disagree with the use of the future fund. The proposed location shows a lack of process, direction, and does nothing to enhance the community at large. A stadium that is used for Ti-Cat home games and the single event of the Pan Am games, is not what was envisioned by Hostco. The future fund was meant to enhance the city through development, not through the destruction of a community. Place the stadium in the logical location, Confederation Park, fund the stadium with the future fund, and create a repayment schedule that can be financed through usage of the stadium. A legacy stadium, used for concerts, community events, that has a major tenant, was the goal of Hostco, and with that I agree. |
| Marrone, Tone | No | No, definitely not. Especially not since there is a way to save one-half of the cost of the stadium construction at a better location.
I am not against dipping into the Hamilton Future Fund for projects that justify the expenditure, but this is not such scenario. Consider my proposal: The City is planning to spend $160 million when we need only one-half that amount. The location is Confederation Park. In order to put Confederation Park on the 'table' again, it would require a two-thirds vote in council, but this is certainly worth the effort in order to save $80 million. (Note: the $80 million savings is extrapolated from the cost of the original construction and proposed 8,000 seat upgrade of BMO field in Toronto). The Confederation Park offers many advantages: a) The city already controls the entire Confederation Park location, so there will be no need to purchase lands. b) The soil is clean and will not need remediation, which will save a great deal of money. c) It has excellent highway access. d) There is plenty of space for parking. e) Looking out over the water, it would be a marvelous location for a stadium. f) It would enhance the area's existing recreational focus. g) Bob Young loves the idea. It is true that Ducks Unlimited et al. may be upset at our reclaiming a portion of the area's marshlands, but we could help the local waterfowl by enhancing an existing location along the lake. |
| Veri, Victor | No | No. Future Fund money could be better invested in other areas which will generate much more return on the investment not only financialy but for other societal benefits. |
| Waxman, Steven | Maybe | One has to ask if the stadium really truly offers a part in the 'Future' of Hamilton, for without a plan, it could end up like Copps Coliseum. |
| Ward 01 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| McHattie, Brian | No | I don't believe the CPR site will go ahead, as the high cost for the land will add to the significant cost of the stadium ($160M+). As this saga evolves I am more interested in pulling back and choosing the Ivor Wynne restoration option (at approx. $20M). With $45M from the Future Fund available for a stadium, that allows us to direct the remaining $25M to redevelopment opportunities at the west Harbour, which should include the velodrome. |
| Ward 02 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Caplan, Marvin | No | NO! In case I wasn't clear, NO! The future fund was designed to be self-replenishing. Any investment of Capital was to have a return to replenish the fund. Ward 2 has 44% of some neighbourhoods living below the poverty line. Hamilton has almost one in four children living below the poverty line. Our water and waste water infrastructure is not being repaired quickly enough. At least the Romans had bread and circuses, not just circuses. Investing public money so that the Tiger-Cats don't lose money is a non-starter. It's offside, it's unnecessary roughness on the taxpayer, it's too many dollars on the field. |
| Casey, Paul | No | Any use of the Future Funds (or, more to the point, the interest from the Future Fund Pricipal) must go to projects, uses and causes that will have the greatest public and accessible benefit to ALL the citizens: parks and recreation, clean air, clean water, restoring pride and livability to areas hardest hit buy our current economic situation. |
| Castle, John | Maybe | If it ever gets built, again, I would like to see further analysis of cost/benefits. Perhaps the site could also be considered for residental purposes, light industry? |
| Deans, Ian | No | The Future Fund was intended to assist people who are building and developing the operation of the city. Developing a stadium is not what it was intended for. The money was generated by the sale, ill advised I might add, of Hamilton Hydro and if they had put a proposal to everyone at the time that was done, to build a stadium down in the flats, I very much doubt it would have received approval. This may be a good spot to raise an issue with you - will you support a proposal by me to require that on all major undertakings, before the question comes to council will you require that a financial plan including sources of capital be put before council? |
| Farr, Jason | Yes | YES - Cats employe over 350 in downtown Hamilton - over 50 live downtown - do NOT want to loose 141 years of football (beloved across the nation are or Cats) or the chance at a stadium for one thrird the cost - Do yoou want it to be built (with our Prov and Fed. tax dollars in some other community?) |
| Geleynse, Martinus | No | The money from our Future Fund should be spent more directly for the benefit of all Hamiltonians. Furthermore, the fund is not meant to be depleted, but rather self-sustaining. For the City to grant our Future Fund dollars to a sports stadium on land that should be used for expansion of living-wage employment lands is a waste. It's simply a bad investment, that we cannot afford. |
| Gentile, Matteo | No | The stadium needs to be built on lands that we already own. What leverage do we have to negotiate with CP to buy that land? None. And none of the numbers being thrown around includes the purchase of these lands. It is terrible this council has fumbled this for so long. The new council can get on this quickly. We do have 4 years to build this. First, we need to ensure we have an agreement in principle with all parties to satisfy HOSTCO ensuring we get the games and the funding for A stadium. All HOSTCO really wants to see is that the city and the legacy tenant (Ticats) will work together and agree to list of sites. We can quickly and effectively evaluate ALL sites that meet the following criteria:
a. City owned property b. Highway access c. Current Brownfield or underutilized green space d. Able to fit a minimum 25,000 seat stadium with adequate parking for that size stadium e. Tiger Cat approval This time we can get it right by following process and due diligence. |
| Hess, Erik | Yes | The future fund is a one time legacy fund that needs very careful consideration. What value does this bring to our community, long term? We do not know the final costs. That is very disconcerting. A decision cannot be made without that knowledge. What value to the downtown does this stadium bring? We need many questions answered, and at this time I would not spend this fund on the stadium. |
| Ielasi, Pat | No | NO NEW STADIUM is needed and still can have a SUCESSFULL Pan Am Games.
* We can still host the Pan Am Games, showcase the city, and make it profitable for many businesses at the same time, without a new stadium, a stadium that is not affordable to build or to maintain. We can ill afford this massive capital expenditure. PROPOSAL AND BENEFITS - If we host the games at the Ron Joyce Stadium at McMaster University, we can house the athletes at the residence. - We can have different events throughout the city during the games i.e. festivals, art exhibits, scattered throughout our city, provide tours of the waterfalls in our city, and provide free shuttle services to each of the destinations, this would benefit McMaster University, and many Businesses that wish to participate at the festivals, at the same time as showcasing the diverse culture, talented local artists and musicians and beautiful city we have. What do we do with Ivor Wynn Stadium? * First we sit and talk to Bob Young and find out if he is committed to staying in Hamilton.... If he is then: - We apply to make Ivor Wynn Stadium a historic land site..... In doing so we would be eligible to receive funding from higher levels of government to aid in the cost to repair the stadium. - If Mr. Young is not interested in playing at Ivor Wynn Stadium he can purchase land at his expense and build a stadium at a location suitable to him.... - In which case Ivory Wynn Stadium should be sold, and that land could be developed to bring in much needed property tax revenue. * Money can better be spent on programs that service our elderly such as seniors for seniors, meals on wheels, community living, Freedom House, children with challenges , and poverty and well as other Capital Projects such as fixing the sewer system that is in desperate need of repair. |
| Janjic, Ned | No | Council is now looking at the CP Rail Yard lands and current members have extended the process another two months, pending departmental reports. I cannot offer an informed opinion on the location until these reports have come in.
However, the Future Fund should not be touched for the construction of the Pan Am stadium. Originally, the Pan Am stadium was to be paid for by all levels of government in addition to private sector funding. If there is not sufficient funding by all parties, the city of Hamilton should review its commitment. Future Fund monies should be used for infrastructure repairs (6,000 homes flooding after each rainfall) and for the clean-up the industrial 'brownfields' to revitalize these lands. We cannot reasonably expect new companies to move into our city and assume responsibility for the clean-up of these brownfields when there are 'shovel ready' land available in other locations. |
| Jelly, Matt | No | There are much higher priorities for the City of Hamilton than a stadium. The Future Fund money must be used for these higher priorities including brownfield redevelopment, addressing the infrastructure deficit, investing in active transportation, and fixing the neighbourhoods that are flooding. It is shameful that we are considering using Future Fund money for the stadium when residents are continually bailing out their basements and when we are seeing areas of the City flood for the first time, as we did last week. Our priorities must be health and safety of homes and residents, quality of life, and a prosperous Hamilton. |
| Lescaudron, Dawn | No | No. We should not be robbing the future fund to build a stadium. There are far more pressing issues that this money can be spent on i.e. - affordable housing, senior and youth recreation etc. Why do we entertain this when we have children going hungry? Where are the priorities?
|
| Novak, James | Yes | I will support a stadium on a couple of conditions. The major condition concerns the taxpayers investment. Currently we are told there is a shortfall in the financing of of $53 million or about 1/3 of the total estimated cost. Based on these numbers, and I understand they are constantly changing, like the location, I would insist that at least $70 million of the cost be paid to resident labour. At least we would be guaranteed the benefit of investing in Hamilton citizens who spend their wages in our community. |
| Pipe, Charlie | No | The legacy the Pan Am games will leave is one of tremendous debt for our city. Enough money has been wasted exploring the options for a stadium we don't need. My stadium has always been Ivor Wynne. Any money needed to update Ivor Wynne Stadium should be raised privately. The Future Fund should be spent on improving city infrastructure. How many more homes need to be flooded in this city? |
| Ward 03 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Black, Bob | Yes | No, how does a new stadium gain greater importance than the issues we have already in Hamilton, we have poverty, we have too many children who go to school and even to bed hungry, serious infrastructure problems and I could go on.. I have always enjoyed the Tiger Cats and I realize the Tiger Cat players do a lot for Hamilton. If there was no talk of building a new stadium or they leave, then the real question should be, Should we spend the Future Fund to build a Pan Am Stadium or not, why or why not? and again I say no, the Pan Am games will only be here a for a short period and I don't see a lot of business being generated from them since they will be in Toronto for the most part. |
| DiMillo, Mark | Maybe | I have promised my constituents that I will consult and engage them in the discussion of the same. It would be unfair of me to answer without knowing what the voters want. The current proposal I don't think will fly, it is seriously underfunded and too many variables and unknowns. As a businessman, I make all decisions with as much calculated risk as possible, and after extensive due diligence is achieved. To date I do not feel the City has had sufficient time to do either. However, if we can get the deal done with $50 million from the future fund, and build a good business case for the project, which reflects the political and social will of Hamiltonians - then YES! |
| Gibson, Sean | No | The future fund is for just that "The Future" not for today, they should have called it the "The Today Fund" then. Put together a strategic plan for the future of our community/city and work towards those ends. Tap into the future fund if it's necessary ...in the future. |
| McGrimmond, Wilamina | No | Pan Am Stadium should have just stayed where it was. Now if it really goes to CP Rail, the taxpayers will be paying a lot more money for this stadium because Bob Young won't be paying a lot more than whatever he offers and All Levels of Government isn't going to pay anymore then they have offered already.
They can tear down the old one and rebuild and make parkades on either side. Teachers can use parkade on Cannon side and the churches can use on Barton street side. |
| Tetley, Paul | No | Future Fund Money should not be used to build a PanAm/Ticat stadium on the CP Rail Yard lands.
The Future Fund was established from the 2002 sale of Hamilton Hydro. Its mission states; "To preserve and manage a permanent, self-sustaining fund as a lasting legacy for current and future generations of Hamiltonians to enjoy economic prosperity, enhanced social fabric and enhanced community life." Current Council has already motioned for the $60 million to be a grant, instead of a loan as recommend by the Future Fund Board of Governors, for what has become a stadium for the benefit of a private interest, Bob Young. This is in direct contravention of the fund's mission, and its Board of Governors recommendation. This contravention will result in a significant depletion of the fund while we, our children, and potentially our grandchildren continue to pay for the initial principal through increasing Hydro Debt Retirement Charges. The residents of Hamilton deserve better than following in the footsteps of Montreal's Olympic Stadium and Toronto's SkyDome, which consumed hundreds of millions of taxpayer's dollars. |
| Ward 04 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Cicconi, Giulio | Yes | If the current city council votes to approve the Aberdeen site, and there is a funding gap, then yes, some of this money should be used to offset any impact to City taxpayers. We should also take some of these dollars to revitalize the West Harbour and the redevelopment of the old stadium site to build new commercial and residential initiatives that would bring much needed tax revenues to the City of Hamilton. Furthermore, this current city council had the responsibility to direct staff to do a proper feasibility study on all proposed sites within the City of Hamilton. This process would have led to choosing the best site at a lower cost, create partnership with the Provincial and Federal Government and business that could have led to zero cost to the City taxpayers. |
| Merulla, Sam | No | Many thanks for taking the time to provide me with your input. From my perspective the foundation of the problem is that the Toronto Pan Am games bid has been fueled by emotion and based on wants rather than needs of our community. The original purpose was to create a legacy for amateur sport and provide a new stadium for the Ti Cats. My contention has always been that if the Ti- Cats cannot afford the old stadium how would they afford a new stadium? Well the answer was provided by the Ti Cats with the East Mountain proposal and now Longwood which changed the original purpose to simply creating a legacy for the Ti- Cats and a potential professional soccer team in partnership with a private developer(s). This relationship with the developer(s) is what in essence allows the Ti- Cats to become sustainable but only leveraging public dollars and with a capital deficit of approx 120 million which benefits the Ti- Cats and developer(s) but not the local taxpayer.
Therefore the issue of sustainability is only realistically addressed at Ivor Wynne and the business challenge of the Ti-Cats is to fill the nearly 30 thousand seats available to them at a publicly subsidized Ivor Wynne. The issue of a new stadium is not the answer to the Ti- Cats sustainability. The issue of sustainability is addressed in providing a product on the field that creates a demand for tickets and the necessary revenue to become and remain sustainable. Therefore a renovated Ivor Wynne and a sold out stadium for all Ti- Cat home games is the answer and the most prudent initiative for all to pursue which is not what some people want but I believe that is what they need. I believe we need to focus on priorities that matter e.g. Manufacturing Jobs, 2 billion dollar infrastructure deficit , 146 million dollar provincial downloading crisis and 20 percent poverty rate. My position has always been the same and that is the fact the Pan Am games and stadium is the mother of all unfocused priorities. I've attached the proceeding comments for your perusal surrounding this fiasco I had written during the summer months: Bottom line is a vote for West Harbour is a vote for Ivor Wynne due to the criterion that money will only be allocated to a site with a long term tenant. Keep in mind West Harbour has a capital deficit of approximate 50 million dollars and millions more in operating thereby creating an environment of an ultimatum from the Province and the Feds due to the preceding criterion. A vote for the urban sprawl option on the East Mountain is a vote for a stadium that is underfunded by approximately 120 million dollars deeming it unaffordable to the taxpayer but with a tenant. Therefore the only viable option left is the renovation of Ivor Wynne which can accommodate soccer and a sustainable tenant that has played at Ivor Wynne since 1930. Anything but Ivor Wynn is a pie in the ski option and a travesty to the hard working people of the City of Hamilton. This unmitigated disaster could have been prevented had my request for due diligence been pursued back in February of 2009. Although I didn't support such a unmitigated ill prepared initiative at least we would have known then what we've confirmed now that this unfocused priority will victimize the taxpayers of this city. |
| 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. |
| Ward 07 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Beck, Keith | Maybe | I'm going to defer on answering the question since it is still before council. I do have positions on both the future fund and the Pan Am budgets and will be releasing them on my website (keithbeck.weebly.com) on the 11th and 18th of October. |
| Gallagher, John | No | City council must not spend any taxpayers money (Future Fund or otherwise) on any stadium location until after the election. If the winds of change blowing through Hamilton right now substantially alter who is sitting at the council table when this term ends, the cost to taxpayers for a wrong decision will be very high indeed. As for stadium location, after my personal review of the short-listed sites and the costs attributed to each, it looks like Bob Young had it right the first time; Confederation Park is the sensible choice.
Prematurely removing Confederation Park from the options list was a typical backroom city hall boondoggle. While certain city hall powerbrokers were loudly (and with a disingenuous bent) defending green space by the lake, they were sitting on a fully completed (but publicly withheld) "Confederation Park Master Plan" that expands the current business footprint at Confederation Park. The Harbour front and Longwood Road sites will need tens of millions we don't have. Compare Confederation Park with the rest - The added millions for purchasing land at Confederation? Zero millions; The added millions for moving existing businesses? Zero millions; The added millions for remediation of a Brownfield? Zero millions. I'm with Bob Young on this one. If elected, I will demand city council put Confederation Park back on the table, and let the naysayers prove its not the best choice. |
| Pettit, Trevor | No | No I do not believe we should use the future funds to build this stadium on the CP Rail Yard lands, or any other lands for that matter. The majority of the people I have talked to far and away do not want a nickel of that money spent on a stadium. They want us to deal with poverty, infrastructure and the basic necessities. The rest can wait. Every site that has been considered has been a hurried study. We can't afford any rushed decisions that will have a negative impact on the beleaguered taxpayer. |
| Ward 08 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Jenkinson, Kim | No | No, this would not be my choice. There is a vision for the Future Fund, 65% is for growing Hamilton's economic base, 20% for enhancing our social fabric, and 15% is for enhancing community life. Of the $74M available in the fund, the only category the stadium would potentially fall into is enhancing community life or 15% of the fund, or $11M. The Future Fund was meant to be an endowment for the city, to help move us forward. I am not seeing how the stadium will achieve that end.
The CP Rail site is not the answer either! McMaster Innovation Park will need room to grow, the stadium will interfere with its development. Why are we putting entertainment ahead of innovation and growth? They need to go back to the drawing board. Again. |
| Ward 09 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Clark, Brad | Yes | The fund should be used for any legacy projects in any part of the City. We need to remember that Stoney Creek Hydro dividends also contributed to the creation of the Future Fund. Since the stadium will qualify for Pam Am Games Legacy funding and our youth will have access to the stadium for sports training and games, then it only seems appropriate that the fund be utilized for this project. |
| Fiorentino, Nancy | No | The Future Fund money should be spent on the aging infrastructure, transit services, and other essential services that will assist all residents and businesses owners of the City of Hamilton. |
| McMullen, Geraldine | Yes | Based on the many allocation goals and the mission statement of the Hamilton Future Fund, the Pan Am stadium would meet this criteria and I believe it will create a lasting legacy for current and future generations. The Hamilton Future Fund would assist with making the Pan Am stadium a project worth developing and completing for the economic prosperity, the enhancement of our community's social fabric, and community life. |
| Ward 10 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Bustamante, Jose Pablo | No | In this specific case I do not have all the economic data to form a judgment. But in principle I will oppose the use of the Future Fund to finance a FOR PROFIT Business. The Future Fund should be used in projects for the benefit of the whole society.
Looking at the objectives of the fund, there is nothing in the legal framework to impede the use of the fund by city officials. However, we will need evaluate this case with a detailed economic analysis. Who is paying for what? Where the money is coming from? How the stadium will be used? Does the Ticat will pay rent or we will pay them royalties? and How much money the city will receive as future cashflows for this investment? After having all this information, then we can decide if is feasible or not the use of the Future Fund for the Pan-Am Stadium. |
| Josipovic, Bernard | No | No we should not spend the future fund on a stadium on the CP rail sight. There are much better sites in Hamilton that we have to revisit and take a second look at.
|
| Ward 11 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Chartrand, Ken | No | There are way to many other uses for this money that will benefit the entire city. Our infrastructure is in dire need of repair, and there are many other projects that need to be addressed. We could use some of this money to enhance transit in the rural areas and or upgrade parks and recreation facilities that we are lacking. |
| Johnson, Brenda | No | We cannot afford a stadium unless the private sector and the anchor tenant is going to come to the table with a business plan and big cheques. |
| Mitchell, David | No | No I do not support this. |
| Ward 12 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Cox-Graham, Brenda | No | Spending the money from the Future Fund seems inconsistent with the funds stated purpose although that is clearly arguable. I am reluctant to spend such money unless it can be demonstrated that it will provide many jobs and financial benefits to the city as a whole. This is a more desirable goal than a place of sports fun for a few. |
| Ward 13 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Powers, Russ | Yes | I support utilizing a portion of the Future Funds as our contribution (along with the Province of Ontario, the Government of Canada and the Hamilton Tiger Cats) towards the replacement of Ivor Wynne Stadium on the CP Rail site in West Hamilton. another portion of the Future Funds will be our contribution towards the construction of the velodrome which I consider as a Pan Am gem and the real legacy project. Monies will also be utilized for renewal of the West Harbour site. |
| Robinson, Glenn | No | Such an expenditure of The Hamilton Future Fund (HFF) money is contrary to both the mission statement and the guiding principles of the HFF. Council should respect the mission statement of the HFF. |
| Scime, Danya | Maybe | A VERY SMALL PORTION **only if absolutely necessary!** The Future Fund's directive is not to use it entirely for any one purpose. With that said, we need to work diligently on having PRIVATE INVESTORS (ie naming rights could generate millions of dollars) to fund this entire stadium. If we engage with the Private Sector, Mr. Young and other interested parties, we should be able to make this a reality.
IF we need a small amount from the FF, then it may be necessary ~ **an alternative, may be to borrow from the FF to get the Stadium built and then pay it back after the Pan Am Games...We must realize that the Stadium will boost EcDev and Pan Am games will boost Tourism, jobs, etc. This entire project, if executed properly will have a huge, positive impact on all aspects of what the Future Funds were meant to accomplish... My hope is that the new Councillors at City Hall will work to make the Stadium and Pan Am Games the pride of Hamilton. With what our Citizen's have witnessed lately, we need to boost our moral and work at getting this huge opportunity right! |
| Tammer, Ron | No | While I believe that a new stadium would be good for the City of Hamilton and the Ticats, I feel it would be irresponsible to use the Future Fund for this purpose when we have major infrastructure issues. People who have been flooded with raw sewage during medium to heavy rainstorms have suffered enough indignity, without having to be told that their concerns are less important than those of the Ticats. I believe that the funding for a stadium should come from the Pan Am organizers and the Tiger Cats, not from the public purse. |
| Ward 15 | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Bos, Neil | Maybe | If my home backed onto the Chedoke public golf course I would be furious - and against the stadium being placed on the CP Rail Yards - but luckily my home is up on the escarpment and council is unlikely to select Waterdown for a Pan Am/Ticat stadium.
Has anybody thought of building the stadium in Cootes Paradise? It was the town dump for a couple of hundred years - and now it's a breeding ground for the invasive carp. We can still honor our commitment to the botanicals. In fact we might be able to help their cause with a football stadium a la Venice. You also might find that US Steel is prepared to open up some of Stelco's old brownfields for the stadium. US Steel might be planning to let the furnaces go cold anyway. |
| Gaspar, Brian | Maybe | I am excited and enthusiastic but we need the right plan to make this all come together. My only concerns are no burden to taxpayers the capacity of the stadium and I hope we make architectural allowances for expansion and a roof over our heads.
The payback on such a venture should not surpass five years, providing we keep a yearly calendar of great events that's for the "raising of the roof come on Hamilton lets bring it on." |
Response Summary (top)
| Brief Response | Count | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 9 | 16.1% |
| No | 39 | 69.6% |
| Maybe | 8 | 14.3% |
27 Candidates Have Not Responded (top)
| Mayor | ||
|---|---|---|
| Filice, Pasquale | ||
| Speziale, Gino | ||
| Wozny, Mark | ||
| Ward 01 | ||
| Greco, Tony | ||
| Paquette, Raymond | ||
| Ward 02 | ||
| Chiarelli, Diane | ||
| Coleman, Shane | ||
| Ferguson, Lloyd | ||
| Jones, Hoojung | ||
| Wright, Kevin | ||
| Ward 03 | ||
| Morelli, Bernie | ||
| Ward 04 | ||
| Bulbrook, Norm | ||
| Ward 05 | ||
| Bedi, Jaswinder | ||
| Collins, Chad | ||
| Rukavina, Frank | ||
| Stacey, Dave | ||
| Ward 06 | ||
| Febers, Michelle | ||
| Jackson, Tom | ||
| Pecyna, Ed | ||
| Ward 07 | ||
| Duvall, Scott | ||
| Ward 08 | ||
| Whitehead, Terry | ||
| Ward 09 | ||
| Mowatt, Andrew | ||
| Ward 10 | ||
| Pearson, Maria | ||
| Ward 12 | ||
| Ferguson, Lloyd | ||
| Ward 13 | ||
| Zuliniak, Marty | ||
| Ward 14 | ||
| Pasuta, Robert | ||
| Ward 15 | ||
| Partridge, Judi | ||
