I'm surprised this hasn't been given it's own thread (realizing the story link has been posted and buried in another thread).
Cats' partners not sold on stadium site (The Spec, Feb 24/10)http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/727236
Considering the lengthy debate and argument here and elsewhere surrounding the various PanAm sites... potential, rejected and selected, the fact that the business community is having concerns about the chosen site should set off alarm bells.
David Braley, Ron Foxcroft, the Tiger Cats, etc have all stated some of their desired site attributes for a successful business plan and unfortunately (for some), the harbour front does not satisfy those requirements.
Also unfortunately, one of the few potential sites that would have apparently fit the bill (highway access and high visibility (for marketing/advertising)) was unceremoniously and (IMO all too) quickly removed from discussion, that being Confederation Park (CP). Without detailed study, we'll never know.
When Counsellor Collins said he wanted to preserve CP for "green space" and suggestions by some that all people had to do was ask what other plans or agendas may have been in the works before voting yah or nay, perhaps the question posed should have been, define, or what is "green space"?
While most think of "green space" as open, green/grassy fields/trails for personal enjoyment and recreation, with the development planned for CP (hotel, restaurant(s), boutiques, etc), perhaps the definition Collins was using was really that of (green) money making business areas/space... "green space"
Even though not their first or preferred choice, give credit to various skeptics like Foxcroft and the Cats for being team players by promising to try and work with the harbour front site and hope the real or perceived negatives can be overcome.