Councillors changing their minds now? on stadium?

According to the Spectator today, it seems like some local councillors are starting to get nervous that perhaps they were wrong in voting for the West Harbour site in the first place and may be ready to vote differently now.

I've been suggesting for a while now that Council should table a motion for an emergency re-vote on this urgent issue before it's too late and the Stadium gets moved to another municipality as MPP Ted McMeekin is now warning about.

It's abundantly clear that the Tiger-Cats have made their final decision and are not posturing or playing games here. They will not be putting a nickel into a West Harbour stadium and their sponsors and partners quite likely won't either.......
Primus, for instance, already said -no- a while back.

The previous vote was 10-5 with one councillor absent (David Mitchell

Sounds like it has already changed to (at least).... 8-7 (and there;s quite likely more who are changing their minds now.

So, my question is this..........Monday night, council will be all together, so in the interest of Hamilton and the future of the Pan Am Games, should a motion be tabled for an emergency re-vote? ........I believe so as the have to correct their previous ill-conceived decision.

David Mitchell is my Councilor and he will be hearing from me today and I will be reminding him that Hollywood Director James Cameron got rich because of a story about another person who was saying "full steam ahead" Mayor Fred is currently advising. :wink:

What say you?

Here is an excerpt from today's Spectator:

Stadium showdown divides councillorsr read more, click link below......

Finally the light is starting ti creep into city hall


         We have said it already on this forum......if the city and Mayor want an easy out from the West Harbour site all they have to do is explore reports that the ground beneath the surface of the Rheem site is unstable and cannot support the weight of a stadium.
         If that turns out to be true they have a perfect face-saving reason to look elsewhere.

Yes, and that would be the prudent thing to do if there is an indication the land could be too unstable and potentially add to the costs exorbantly. There would be no shame in admitting that, in fact the opposite, it would show that they are intelligent people.

City council can`t make a knee jerk decision over a short weekend
to finalizing an alternative choice of site for the stadium location.

A pause of 90 days is needed to consider other sites,
like caretaker bob suggested, or 60 days...or 30 days,

the developers and retailers bob has spoken to have likely been
sniffing around particular retail sites that they like in the City,

but C-O-L-L-A-B-O-R-A-T-E with the Tiger Cats!!

You can rest assured, as we read this form, City Councillors are on the phone with each, forming into camps. Those that back the Mayor and insist of the Rheim site and those that want it changed or scrapped althogether will be trying to influence the "middle of the road" members to see it their way.

I think the idea put forward of a 90 day "re-think" on the decision might sway some to support that option. Nothing a politician wants less, is to have been linked with what might turn out to be a bad idea and accused of rushing into things needlessly. Especially in an election year, just mere months away! After 90 days looking into the project, whether things change or remain the same, they can then honestly say they gave it there best and face the voters.

Hey, someone who has a grasp of how politics works. How novel

You can rest assured, as we read this form, City Councillors are on the phone with each, forming into camps. Those that back the Mayor and insist of the Rheim site and those that want it changed or scrapped althogether will be trying to influence the "middle of the road" members to see it their way.
You Betcha! :wink:

Anyhow, I just found out how a re-vote will happen

On a motion -which can only be tabled by a councillor who originally voted in favour of the West Harbour site-, a 2/3 majority is needed in order to re-visit the original decision.

...them's the rules :slight_smile:

deerhunter, that's how it works. I wonder how that proviso they put on the vote about plan B might effect that procedure?

Actually, the "plan B" encompassed any other site deemed worthy of exploration........what they -can- do by this re-vote is take the Rheem site right off the table due to the Mayor's tunnel vision and refusal to consider a Plan B because of the property acquisitions already taken place......< ----proof he has summarily dismissed all provisions........then, the 90 day thing can take effect and the -correct- decision on a new location can happen.........properly this time and using proper anaysis and experts........time is short though and this all has to happen now before we lose the stadium altogether......Council has to , in effect, shut the Mayor up before he dooms everything with his endless insults, childish remarks and failure to think smart (I know that sounds harsh, but it's reality)

Plan B means there needs to be no re-vote with a 2/3 majority. The provision is on the floor and a simple majority can change the venue. That was the entire point of getting it in the motion. 2/3 is always an impossible hill to climb but a simple majority means that the will of council cannot be denied by a minority of councilors if new information changes the dynamics of an issue

That's an even quicker route

Tks guys. I was sure that it was put on the original vote as a means for some of the councillors to have a means of changing their vote down the road in necessary.

Ron: Good thoughts...but good luck!
The Caretaker and the Pan-Am committee chair and the Mayor can't even agree on how much time there is left to re-visit things.
The Caretaker mentioned on CHML there is plenty of time eg until the end of this year.
The Mayor and Ian Troop say there is a May 17th deadline because time is getting short.
How did things get so crazy?
(No need to answer. It's all here on this forum!).

Of course Troop and the Mayor are saying a May 17th deadline, they are in cohoots to just clean up Rheem, the TigerCats are very, very down the list of their priorities I'd say as much as they want all of us to believe that's not the case. I'm not that bright but I can figure this out. Bottom line, they don't even care about the TigerCats or sponsors money as much as they'd like it of course, but Rheem is going ahead in their mind, Cats or sponsors or no Cats or sponsors.

Yes lets re-vote every election, till some one gets thiere way, get on with it bring in Lacrosse.
No free rides Bob. Hamilton down town needs the Stadium, the time to do it is now. Lets face it
it's the average Joe who goes to the games, and mostly by bus or walking. Hope The Mayor don't whimp out.

I'm thinking that the unequivocal response from the teams owner pretty much got these "public servants" hopping and skipping!

Once the poop hit the proverbial fan,and these twits finally grasped the idea that the only legacy they might be creating was the team leaving the city(and probably sealing their political fate in the process),some clarity(lucidity?) crept into the process.

Now,we are going to see these piggies at the rough do a tap dance to save their reputations and get out of this West Harbour silliness.My only hope is that the prime tenant of this facility is completely and totally involved in where this place is going to go,because once these games are finished,it's probably going to be only the Tiger-Cat's using the facility...

That's why Mayor Fred will be punted out next election. The guy has been wishy-washy for practically every issue except this one. Now he's got a firm stand on the stadium issue and it's the wrong choice. :thdn:

Which issues?

So what Im reading here is that there going to spend a pile of money building a stadium that will be used for 2 weeks then sit vacant for eternity. Typical!