Here is the live feed of the meeting going on now!
This is better then watching, Just for laughs!
Here is the live feed of the meeting going on now!
i just tuned in to see an interview being conducted with the mayor ( ? ) and its very hard to hear.
in spite of the 14-2 vote council is still divided on the issue. Its clear there are at least 4 of the 14 that will have to be convinced even if a proposal is brought forward that has approval of the city manager, Ticats and HOSTCO if it doesn’t include massive spending at Rheem. If an agreement is worked out I think the best outcome we can hope for is a 9-7 or 10-6 vote in favour. Lots of arm twisting will be occurring and frankly its all rather pointless as it seems positions are still very entrenched
My favourite Councilor (gag) Brian McHattie voted "no" re the Council vote (Murella's "no" was practically a given).
Now that he's lost the Council vote, I wonder who McHattie will go running to (to override that vote) when the Province and Feds seem onside with removing WH as a site choice?
nvm...the spec has an update on their site:[url=http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/252550--council-backs-longwood-stadium]http://www.thespec.com/news/local/artic ... od-stadium[/url]
City council has voted 14-2 in favour of studying building a stadium near Aberdeen and Longwood.
Ancaster councillor Lloyd Ferguson made a motion that the city manager negotiate with Ticats for new stadium that includes the Aberdeen/Longwood site. He said the debate is screaming out for a new location. This motion is to direct staff to report to councillors on Sept 15.
"Longwood is a brownfield, close to downtown, close to public transit, and infrastructure like sewers already in place."
"It was a huge breakthrough with Ticats that this site might be okay."
Councillor Terry Whitehead says it is painfully clear that city was driving toward the "edge of a cliff" with push to support west harbour for the stadium.
"These opportunities come very few times in a decade," he said.
This MIP recommendation is an opportunity to move forward, he said.
"This is opportunity to grab success from the jaws of defeat ... to resolve this issue once and for all," Whitehead said.
Ferguson said McMaster are willing to examine the proposal.
"They are very interested, but I sense they would like to help solve this impasse. Clearly they are going to have some issues of their own and they will work through those."
One of the few dissenting voices so far came from Councillor Brian McHattie, who wanted to know "if there any thing wrong with the west harbour site."
The Ticats have not demonstrated why the west harbour doesn't work, McHattie said.
"They haven't opened their books. It sounds like the only reason why we're moving away from the west harbour because they don't wan to go there."
The Ticats did share a critique of the west harbour site, said finance boss Rob Rossini.
McHattie says the vision of the McMaster Innovation Park does not include a stadium.
"I talked to McMaster yesterday, and I had a different response than Councillor Ferguson," he said. "They are very concerned about this. They have plans for those lands."
"I am extremely disappointed about this direction .. It puts the Pan Am games in great jeopardy."
He said he can't support the MIP recommendation.
Councillor Bernie Morelli says west harbour was a major key objective, "but that has not happened."
He said he will support the motion.
City manager Chris Murray told councillors that said Ian Troop, HostCo leader, has responded that it will proceed on a "dual track" and will support a possible new stadium location.
Murray said HostCo will require a report by Sept 14. If no solution is found, they will proceed with the August resolution.
Mayor Fred Eisenberger says the city is closer to coming to a solution.
"We want the Hamilton Tiger-Cats here ... If we can add some of the successes we've achieved with west harbor development and some investment opportunities ... if we can marry all of those together we will have made an enormous gain."
Eisenberger said if a site to accommodate all those can be found, "I will not stand in the way of that."
There is a downside to McMaster Innovation Park site, he said. McMaster has to be part of the mix to "enhance the vision"
There may be parking opportunities that may free up land on the east side of Longwood.
"There is only one road going into Longwood site, but it is on highway and meets some of the Ticats' requirements."
"I will support the recommendation today," the mayor said.
The city will need provincial and federal help to get the stadium, he said.
"We've all been challenged by the emotions of this ... We need to make the right decision for the city of Hamilton," Eisenberger said.
"I commit to work with Bob Young ... to ensure we fulfill the promise and legacy of Pan Am."
"Unfortunately we are where we are, and we have to find a solution."
Councillor Sam Merulla has asked why Longwood was eliminated from the original list.
David Adames replied that facilitator Michael Fenn sought an alternate site and the east Mountain was chosen because it was seen as less complicated. that's because there was a single owner in the Ontario Realty Corporation.
City manager Murray said there will be challenges in parking at Longwood, but "I view it as an opportunity because the innovation park has significant development planned and parking opportunities may be reached through that."
Tim McCabe, general manager planning and economic development for the city, said the MIP district is seen as pillar of city's economic development strategy as employment lands.
"A stadium does not fit that vision, to be honest with you."
McCabe said it's a trade off -- a planned vision for another vision.
Merulla said every site has a significant economic deficit attached.
Councillor Brad Clark says he's concerned about the message the McMaster Innovation Park recommendation sends about the city's commitment to developing an innovation district.
"But I can still support the resolution," he said.
Clark is also concerned that the city will not exclude the west harbor site in the resolution.
Murray says that he has "no intention" of raising west harbor in discussions with the Ticats.Councillor Scott Duvall says he will support the MIP recommendation.
"I'm going to be open-minded. I continue to support west harbour unless with have another viable site."
Duvall wants west harbour to remain as a backup site in the motion.
Councillor Maria Pearson says she will also support the innovation park site resolution despite some reservations. She wanted to know what Future Fund board members think about the Longwood/Aberdeen site.
Eisenberger said he has heard from several members of the Future Fund board, "and they are not wildly opposed to MIP."
Councillor Tom Jackson said he will strongly support the motion.
He said he believes there are 35 acres available at the Longwood/Aberdeen precinct, of which the city owns 15 acres.
"And we now own 20 acres in the west harbour."
Jackson believes a stadium in the MIP lands could spur sports-related research.
Councillor Dave Mitchell said he strongly supports this motion. "I've looked at this as a motherhood (issue). This should have been fixed a long time ago,"
"West harbour can't have any more work done on it."
Councillor Bob Bratina said he's fine with this resolution.
"Let's get on with this and build the stadium."
City councillors have voted 13-2 in favour of a motion to negotiate a Pan Am stadium location that is suitable for the Ticats and the city.
Both sides will look at the Aberdeen and Longwood Road site and other mutually agreeable alternate sites.
The motion also proposes the remediation of the west harbour site without a stadium.
The CFL team has said it would never play at the west harbour location.
City manager Chris Murray will be instructed to report back to council by mid-September.
The Pan Am Host Corporation has given the city a new deadline of September 14th to select a stadium location.
This is great news IMO
this nonsense may finally be comingt to an end
I'm so happy I could cry......lol
A big step in the right direction! Let's hope now that a deliverable stadium will be on the table for HOSTCO come September.
Could it be....
Is it possible....
We may be able to talk football again?
As the Spec article mentions, sports related research at MIP might be something worthwhile to focus on. I know there is big grant money out there for research topics like the effects of exercise on diseases like cancer and mental health as well as for elite athlete training studies. This could be interesting as well as robotics and innovations in equipment for people who have lost limbs and have paralysis in accidents, sports etc. Hamilton could become a world leader in this and right at MIP with a state of the art stadium and training complex right there.
Example at the University of Alberta:
Hostco has given the City another extension of time??? What a joke we must seem to the rest of the country. If Bob decides this "new" site is not suitable, I wonder if we will get another extension to find somewhere else? I hope this is decided before the snow flies.
nomad, the "new" site will be suitable I'm sure. Now "how suitable" for Bob and developers to contribute to, that is a big question because if that money isn't there, then there will be problems. Sept. 14 isn't that far away.
That's why the EM plan was excellent, the TigerCats had this on the table in a reasonably developed form.
I don't live in Hamilton. I don't know any of the Coucillors who are being criticized. Frankly, I don't care. That's your problem. Good luck!
Now we can get back to criticizing the referees. Many posters seem to find fertile ground there.
But, we can all be grateful that a measure of sanity seems to have returned.
Alas, not yet.
The Mayor and several Coucillors will spend the next two weeks trying to save face. They'll do this by hanging onto their WH pipe dream while moving forward with the Aberdeen site. The gullible will continue to believe the fairy tale of a WH CFL stadium curing all of Hamilton's social problems and whatever other vested interests would have been served.
So another two weeks to go...
[quote="Earl"]nomad, the "new" site will be suitable I'm sure. Now "how suitable" for Bob and developers to contribute to, that is a big question because if that money isn't there, then there will be problems. Sept. 14 isn't that far away.
That's why the EM plan was excellent, the TigerCats had this on the table in a reasonably developed form.[/quote
What Private money was on the table for E M ? Link Please
Its a good thing Hamilton Council rejected E M., Ticats could not survive drawing 5000 a game there! IMHO
I find it funny, most of those vilifying Bob Young where saying he had no options and he would have to play where the city deemed to be the right spot. Obviously it doesn't work that way. You want to keep the Tiger-Cats playing in Hamilton, then both sides needed to compromise. Finally it seems common sense is prevailing, which is great to see. Hopefully this works out for both the city and the team.
I.m looking forward to not having Katz around this stadium issue anymore ..........I also don't trust Fred even one teeniest bit ........but the spotlight is on him huge now so he'll have a tough time trying to pull anymore sneaky stuff........
by the way, where are all the corporate sponsors he said he had lined up for the West Harbour ?? .............hahaha.......liar, liar pants on fire
Mass, the $15 mill Bob was offering for the EM site was going to come partly from naming rights for the stadium I'm sure and maybe some other developments Osmington probably would be doing.
deer, agree, I don't trust Fred quite yet but I am open to trusting him, we'll see shortly.
Hey City Council - I have a great idea - THE EM SITE! It is much more suitable for a stadium, the Tiger Cats are onside, The Feds and the Province are onside, and it doesnt take away high end research jobs. I don't get these guys at all. We have the ooportunity to showcase a brand new stadium and we propose to bury it in the one corner of the City that McMaster is making great progress. They say it is a brownfield, but isn't it McMaster's brownfield? Why are we in such a hurry to clean it up. I do nto get these guys at all. And by the way - why wasnt Rheem made to clean up their mess?
Random facts I picked up at the city council meeting today
Councillor Bob Bratina said,
don't to worry about the stadium taking up space
that could be used by the Mc Master Innovation park
because Mc Master is filling up the space that they have
with things that don't fit what the park was designed to do.
I missed the examples but the Hotel project comes to mind.
Councillor Tom Jackson said that
as well as this 20 acres of Mc Master's property
the City has 15 acres in the immediate area.
and I believe Councillor Ferguson or him mentioned swapping Mc master
some downtown land for their MIP land to help develop the downtown
They talked about land for Mc Master to put a medical
training facility downtown instead of on the MIP site.
Mc Master didn't want to pay what the Board of Education asked for
their headquarter office building property on Main West and Bay St.