*** My math was right, but my reference was not... the opinion piece from the RTH writer was 1022 words vs my edited 750 that was rejected when 750 words was supposed to be the limit (per R. Howard of the Spec). The 2000 words I referenced was my original submission that was rejected because it was over the 750 maximum. But 1022 (accepted) is still larger than 750 (rejected)
My (750 word) rejected rebuttal (Aug 10)...
[b]City's best interests must decide stadium (Aug 7)[/b]
Mayor… "debate on the site has been vigorous, spirited and robust…
essence of the debate comes down to two competing visions..."
About the only accurate part of this pre-election spin.
Mayor... "My vision is clean, green, and prosperous… we must rehabilitate
abandoned industrial land in the heart of the city and place on it new
developments that attract businesses and jobs. It means revitalization of
Suggests there’s his “lofty? vision, then there’s the "other?.
Mayor... "…It means new entertainment opportunities… NHL team,
restaurants, stores, cultural activities… better ways to get around…
including LRT… "
- attracting an NHL team means offering "breaks (giving owner control of
arena and revenues). Wasn't that the deal for Balsillie? Why is Young
crucified wanting a similar arrangement?
why would only a WH stadium lead to development? An amphitheatre would
seem to achieve that goal.
public transit... forced dream thru crippling downtown traffic flow.
more hopes, wishes and planning based on a non-existent LRT
Mayor... "… a "driveway to driveway" stadium accessible mostly by car --
far removed from LRT …"
LRT again... unless Fred knows something we don't. LRT's affect is
questionable but not a sure thing, so irrelevant and not part of the
Mayor... "(EM) removes industrial employment lands from the City "
There’s trouble filling the present industrial parks plus there’s still
undeveloped airport lands. A red herring, along with costs for
road/infrastructure work in EM when money was to be spent anyway.
Mayor... "competing visions are a cleaner, greener, more prosperous city
of the future, or the environmentally harmful "driveway to driveway"
The Mayor tries to play the White Knight and claim the moral high.
Mayor... "… It is also about the preferences of the "legacy tenant," the
The ignored "legacy tenant"...
left off the short list of officially consulted groups
dismissed as a minority player
a major reason Hamilton was awarded the stadium
painted as an uncaring, greedy business only looking after it's own
Mayor... " Tiger-Cats are an important part of history and life of the city."
Empty platitudes considering the insults made and contempt shown.
Mayor... "important to remember that it is a privately owned, private
enterprise. Is it the role of the government to ensure a private business
is sustainable? For what other private business would we spend hundreds of
millions of public dollars and then turn over all the revenues from that
public facility to the private interest?"
Government helping business... like the plan to entice Balsillie to bring
the NHL to Hamilton?
Like City's plan for his backroom friends the Katz group (manage City
facilities and revenue)?
If it’s OK for Balsillie, Katz, etc, why not for Young?
Mayor... "As a city government, we do not offer that service … They are on
their own to create and sustain their own economic viability."
See above re the Mayor/City and Balsillie/Katz.
JB wanted government assistance, plus management and revenues, and the
City was more than willing to go along.
Mayor... "… May 6, 2010, the Tiger-Cats' ownership insisted that it would
never play at a west harbour stadium… has become a barrier..."
TiCat's concerns were made known since last year, they were ignored.
"Insistence" comes from not liking the numbers at WH. TiCats ARE a
business, not a philanthropic organization.
Mayor... "(TiCats) have never presented a proper business case that proves
a stadium located at west harbour cannot work..."
The CFL lists few teams showing a profit (Hamilton not being one of them),
WH has many of the same issues as IWS.
City’s own studies/plans suggest other uses other than a stadium at WH.
The Deloitte report made a stadium anything but a sure success.
Mayor... "Notwithstanding my strong view of where this stadium should go,"
Mayor... "I have done my best to work with all..."
By ignoring the work/suggestions of facilitator Fenn and you've certainly
NOT worked with the TiCats.
Mayor... "uphold the best interest of the people of the city of Hamilton."
By sticking to a site the City's own studies don't support or guarantee as
being successful serves the best interests of citizens?
Mayor... “A private interest … must not and cannot be put ahead of the
Unless an NHL team comes a knockin'.
Mayor... "public interest is with a stadium at west harbour.
No proof, just wishes and dreams.
Now moot given Council’s WH vote.
It loses some content in the reduction to fit the 750 word limit but it couldn't be helped. If I had only known 750 was a
"rough", arbitrary number.