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:
12 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. |
Response Summary (top)
| Brief Response | Count | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 1 | 8.3% |
| No | 9 | 75.0% |
| Maybe | 2 | 16.7% |
3 Candidates Have Not Responded (top)
| Mayor | ||
|---|---|---|
| Filice, Pasquale | ||
| Speziale, Gino | ||
| Wozny, Mark | ||
