[Chad]

It's official. The West Harbour Pam Am Stadium was just ratified just a few minutes ago, with 10 in favour, 6 opposed.

More details to come.

Disgraceful. I really, really hope somehow we lose the games AND the Ti-Cats decide to leave town. Then all our loser liberal counselors will only have themselves to blame.

I think this the exact opposite of disgraceful, rather its quite important that a majority of our City Council chose to consider the entire impact of a stadium project and the wishes of its citizens, rather than just the desires of a single sports business.

According to the the Angus Reid survey conducted by the city just before the vote, 57% of residents believe the stadium should be built even without the ti-cats and 52% preferred the west harbour. What's more telling is that this percentage increased to over 60% amongst those younger than 34 (i.e. the long term sustainable future fans of city and the ti-cats franchise).

As evidence of just how enormous the impact of any stadium site with on-site parking and minimal transit access would be, one should consider some parking modelling. On the low end, a parking stall requires at least 25m^2 of space for a single vehicle: http://www.webs1.uidaho.edu/niatt_la...iderations.htm

For any stadium location with all on-site parking (East Mountain, Confederation Park, etc), 7000+ parking spaces are needed. 7000*25m^2=175,000m^2 , or in other words a piece of land 175m wide by 1km long needs to be paved, just for parking. Now try and place that parking at confederation park, you'll quickly notice that you have to pave the entire park (including all the green space and waterpark) just to meet the parking requirements. At a site like East Mountain, the space exists, but the environmental implications (runoff, increased heat retention, building materials) of building such a parking lot are huge.

With the provinces stated goals to work for a sustainable future, such a development is clearly a huge step backwards. Council was left with really no good choice, I agree the West Harbour site is far from perfect and without the Ti-Cats may not happen, but to put the stadium somewhere that required paving at least 175,000m^2 of green space is simply unacceptable given a commitment to sustainability.

Personally, I think the "least bad" option now would be for money to spent on a permanent velodrome at the West Harbour (there's only one full-sized velodrome in North America, in Los Angeles and the Canadian Cycling Federation supports a permanent velodrome in Canada in Hamilton) and some compromise reached to renovate Ivor Wynne for the Ti-Cats. This of course means no new stadium, which is probably preferable to a potentially empty stadium.

Originally Posted by dsahota

but to put the stadium somewhere that required paving at least 175,000m^2 of green space is simply unacceptable given a commitment to sustainability.

Pretty much destroyed any logic you had with that statement. Nobody gives a flying you-know-what about cutting down some trees for parking. Millions and millions of dollars are at stake and we're going to base our decision on tree-huggers rather than the finances? I don't think so.

The Ti-cats leaving seems absurd to me. They tried to dictate what the city had to do as an ultimatum in my opinion. That's ridiculous. Let the tax payers decide where the stadium goes, it's our stadium and ultimately our money being used.

On a positive note: West Harbour will hopefully help to revitalize the downtown area nearby. Transportation its good from outside of the city (ie. the Go Train for people from outside of Hamilton to come watch concerts and games). The only thing lacking for that area is public transit... the city will need to make it easy for students coming from McMaster to get down to the water front, either by opening a bus route or providing an express shuttle. But either way, I'm all for bringing more attractions and excitement down to the waterfront, which is a beautiful area to go but needs more happening down there to liven the atmosphere

On a side note, the city has a lot of plans for the waterfront which I'm looking forward to them implementing!

Originally Posted by drew4008

Pretty much destroyed any logic you had with that statement. Nobody gives a flying you-know-what about cutting down some trees for parking. Millions and millions of dollars are at stake and we're going to base our decision on tree-huggers rather than the finances? I don't think so.

Ok lets talk finances. How about the fact that the East Mountain stadium would cost $50-80 million more than the West Harbour due to infrastructure upgrades needed. Even with the $15 mill from the Cats that leaves a hole of anywhere from$35-65 mill. Pretty much destroyed any logic you had.

How about all the millions the city loses each year on Copps Colisieum? Ready to add to that when we need to manage another empty stadium?

West Harbour is a good location but there are major issues in regards to toxic. There's a lot of brownfield land. It's hard to imagine, though I wouldn't be an expert on the matter, that the cost of cleaning it up would still make it the cheaper option compared to East Mountain.

Originally Posted by dkdk

How about all the millions the city loses each year on Copps Colisieum? Ready to add to that when we need to manage another empty stadium?

The Katz groups is interested in working out a deal so they will manage the West Harbour location and Copps Coliseum!!

Originally Posted by Werd

The Katz groups is interested in working out a deal so they will manage the West Harbour location and Copps Coliseum!!

Adding to what Werd has said, the Katz group also owns the Edmonton Oilers, and are interested in attracting an NHL team to Hamilton (because NHL ownership is a boy's club, see Jim Balsillie). Not the Oilers, but a U.S. team that's in the ruts.

Also, Katz wants to try and attract a MLS team if the TiCats happen to leave (I'm calling their bluff, though. Hamilton's a big football market.).

Exactly, that "$35 million hole" will be so paltry when comparing the revenues between a stadium which actually has a tenant and one that has no damn team! Not to mention there are more private interests willing to help fund the East Mtn. stadium, rather than being all taxpayer-funded.

And in regards to what Chad is saying... the taxpayers are not deciding, so that's a falsehood. Almost that entire city council is a bunch of idiots and do not speak for a huge chunk of the taxpayers. The lowlives downtown who they're representing pay no tax and get welfare! Whereas people from Ancaster, Dundas, West Hamilton, Flamborough, etc. who actually have money and are paying taxes out the rear end get no say! As usual. Worst thing to ever happen to this area was the amalgamation of Hamilton... God it irritates me.

Originally Posted by drew4008

Almost that entire city council is a bunch of idiots and do not speak for a huge chunk of the taxpayers. The lowlives downtown who they're representing pay no tax and get welfare!

I live downtown and pay plenty of tax, certain tax rates (transit, etc) are actually set higher for people downtown as was agreed to during the process of amalgamation. Oh and I also don't collect welfare either. I'm also pretty sure the people who live in the mansions on Aberdeen would also dislike being called lowlives, I'm sure they're paying by far the most tax per household of anyone in the amalgamated Hamilton, as some of those places are worth 3million+ (and there's a lot of them). Also keep in mind that councillors are elected in wards, so many of them are voted in purely by people in ADFW.

You should come downtown and wander around Locke St, James, and the neighbourhoods around there. A lot has changed in the last 5 years and there's a lot more young professionals moving into the area and a really good mix of people with plenty of parks, shops and greenspace. Yes of course there's plenty of poverty spread throughout the downtown area, but that's part of the legacy of the collapse of the steel industry and the reality of living in any downtown area.

Originally Posted by drew4008

Exactly, that "$35 million hole" will be so paltry when comparing the revenues between a stadium which actually has a tenant and one that has no damn team! Not to mention there are more private interests willing to help fund the East Mtn. stadium, rather than being all taxpayer-funded.

This would be true if the city was operating the East Mountain site, the problem is the deal the TiCats wanted was for them to operate the site and to glean all revenues from it. Their operation of the site and collection of other revenues (for concerts, parking etc) was why they could easily turn a profit at East Mountain. Because the city would be getting none of the stadium revenues, the $35 million dollar hole would have remained a $35 million dollar hole in perpetuity. The other big downside was the loss of $1-5 million per year of potential tax revenue if the East Mountain was developed according to the current community plan. So the $35 million dollar hole would grow each year the Ti-Cats were there. That's not exactly a great deal for the city.

The city doesn't get a cut of liquor taxes, or HST, so the only hope for the East Mountain to be beneficial for the city would be if the economic spin-offs (other new developments) created significant additional tax revenue for the city. Based on the estimates of City Staff, this wasn't going to happen.

West Harbour is a different case because the land is vacant and while there were taxes owing on it, they weren't being paid. There was no expectation it would be developed in the near future, so the site can be developed with no loss in potential tax revenue.