Special Report: Pan Am

Stadium Poll Results

Results of the telephone survey asking Hamiltonians about a Confederation Park stadium and a scalable 6,000 seat stadium.

By RTH Staff
Published January 14, 2011

Last week, Councillor Terry Whitehead commissioned Pollstra Research to conduct a public opinion survey of Hamiltonians concerning the proposed Pan Am stadium. The survey was conducted on Sunday, January 9, 2011 and the results have just been made public.

The survey, a random sample of 830 Hamiltonians, was conducted by telephone and the results have been weighted by gender and region (Central, Eastern Suburbs, Western Suburbs). The reported margin of error is +/- 3.4%, 19 times out of 20.

Question 1: Confederation Park

Question 1 reads, "In regards to the possible Confederation Park location, would you like council to consider building the Stadium in Confederation Park or would you prefer to see the space remain as park land?"

Question 1 Results
Male Female Centre (Hamilton) Eastern Suburbs Western Suburbs Total
Consider Confederation Park 49.6% 39.8% 49.9% 50.1% 32.1% 46.8%
Remain as a Park 43.0% 47.6% 41.3% 41.0% 57.4% 44.9%
Undecided 7.4% 12.7% 8.8% 9.0% 10.6% 8.4%

Question 2: Scalable Stadium

Question 2 reads, "If the Tiger-Cats choose to relocate to a different city, should city council still pursue funding from Host-Co to build a scalable 6000 seat stadium that meets the PanAm requirements and the established community needs?"

Question 2 Results
Male Female Centre (Hamilton) Eastern Suburbs Western Suburbs Total
Yes 35.6% 38.8% 33.4% 35.8% 34.1% 34.1%
No 54.1% 47.9% 55.2% 51.3% 54.1% 54.6%
Undecided 10.4% 13.3% 11.5% 12.9% 11.9% 11.4%

Note that the second question does not specifically identify the West Harbour as the stadium location.

90 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted January 14, 2011 at 14:00:28

Putting the credibility of the survey aside, thank God we don't have a system where people get to 'cast a vote' on every decision that needs to be made.

That thought's enough to make me shudder myself into a syncope.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mike_sak (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 14:03:42

that's hamilton for you. what do you expect?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Sky (anonymous) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 14:22:47

Thanks RTH!

Well, we know now that question one is moot for the Stadium...but how about the scaled down Veledrome???

I want West Harbour developed and sustainable...The Veledrome Project urges that a Veledrome must be adjacent to other sporting facilities to be sustainable...

And my pig headedness, has me hoping for an eco friendly, state of the art, tourist destination ~ with highway visibility and access...we have a great new pedestrian/cycle bridge there too!

Kind of cool if the hubby could go down with junior daughter to do some rounds on the cycling track while Mom takes a walk over to Wild Waterworks with the rest of the kids...

Incorporate an Interpritive Centre, showcasing our history of the waterfront...Huricane Hazel, our protected vegetation and wildlife...

Have the family join back up and walk the pathways through out the Park?

Place Tourism Hamilton's head quarters there?

Solar Panels?

Marina???

So many untapped ideas to finally showcase the other side of our waterfront...Blending nature with an abandoned campground...

Get a huge sponsor for naming rights, advertising...and spin it back to help out the rest of our City ~ especially West Harbour!!!

Go back to the Government for more funding to get this done...surely building in a water re-cycling plant (like Mac Engineering Building), green energy (with solar panels), promoting and preserving areas already established in the area ~ would get us more cash.

And post thought...How about our funding requests include the wording our City's entire waterfront??? Whether it is used at the Bay side (WH) or on the Lakeside...Waterfront rejuvination!!! All sides win:)

Have a great day!

Danya

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 14:30:39

Fascinating that people in the West End placed a higher value on public parkland in the East End than East End residents themselves.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted January 14, 2011 at 14:33:50

telephone survey. ha.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MattM (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 14:41:35

A poll which is absolutely pointless as of the last council meeting anyway.

Confederation Park is long dead, Ivor Wynne is the location on the table. If that fails, West Harbour is the official plan B, silly telephone polls aside.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 14:47:45

highwater...same was true of Red Hill. Perhaps folks in the east end have just given up that they'll ever have a clean, healthy environment?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 14:54:33

A friend of mine was a part of the poll... which kept calling him. While I am in no position to question the validity of the results, it does make me wonder.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Borrelli (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 15:08:06

@ GrapeApe

A good poll will include a set number of callbacks as part of the sampling design. This is to try to mitigate any non-response bias. Calls will ideally come at different times and days in order to avoid missing out on respondents who cannot pick-up the first call.

As to Pollstra, I've never heard of them before, but I don't know that there's any worry about the validity of the results. Honestly, it's so easy to run a phone poll these days that you don't even really need a polling company--they just exist to lend some credibility to the studies, and to help people that don't know what they're doing. There are enough call-center/phone-farms out there that if you've taken a course in survey design, you can design the poll yourself and essentially outsource all the calling--in fact, I bet you that's what Pollstra does.

EDIT: Actually, I lose the bet/I'm wrong. According to their website, Pollstra says:

"We have three offices with two located in Hamilton, Ontario and one office in Palo Alto California. Our Hamilton mountain location is dedicated to Pollstra Research, with a 30 seat in-house call centre attached. Our Stoney Creek location hosts our support staff for our partner companies. We have a satellite office in the Palo Alto Business Centre in California. This dedicated suite provides us ample space to serve our US client's needs."

Comment edited by Borrelli on 2011-01-14 15:10:51

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 15:26:49

@Borrelli

So it will call you back even after you answered the poll the first time? I've never had a poll do that to me.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Borrelli (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 15:29:42

@ GrapeApe

Oh, weird. Yeah, I thought you meant they kept calling back cus no one was picking up (sorry--for a second I externalized my ongoing practice of ignoring any call with a 613 prefix, because it's almost always a polling company, and they always call back a half-dozen times or so).

For them to call and try to get the same respondent twice is pretty sloppy. Actually--really sloppy.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 15:54:32

Wow. Great results.

This poll reaffirms to me that Hamiltonians truly know what's right for them.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 16:31:21

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 16:34:41

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By whitehorse (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 17:17:28

MattM quote: A poll which is absolutely pointless as of the last council meeting anyway.

Confederation Park is long dead, Ivor Wynne is the location on the table. If that fails, West Harbour is the official plan B, silly telephone polls aside.


Agree! City Councilors should go for plan B!

Comment edited by whitehorse on 2011-01-14 17:18:30

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rayfullerton (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 17:48:56

Next meeting re Pan Am Stadium is at the Special GIC meeting on Monday, January 24 1:00 pm. NOTE : 5 minute delegation presentations are allowed to voice your opinion, complete a Request to Speak to a Committee http://www.hamilton.ca/CityDepartments/C...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TomRobertson (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 18:00:02

How can you trust this poll when Whitehead even lied about commissioning it.

http://ideas.typepad.com/hall_marks_emma...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rayfullerton (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 18:08:36

Thanks Tom for the link to Comic Relief ..... a good laugh!!http://ideas.typepad.com/hall_marks_emma_reilly/2011/01/comic-relief.html?cid=6a00d83451bb7469e20148c794f179970c#comment-6a00d83451bb7469e20148c794f179970c

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JimmyS (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 19:10:10

I wonder if these are as accurate as election polls (rolls eyes). Anyone been following this Mark Cripps fellow on twitter?? Yikes. No wonder nobody gives a rats backside about what the old media thinks anymore. What a clown. He obviously doesn't live in Hamilton. He wants city council to just bend over and let the Ticats take whatever they please.
Thankfully twitter has the wonderful 'unfollow' button. He was partially useful for one evening when spreading lies about a landslide vote in favour of the east mountain.
Now I know why I've always considered the Mountain News a crap rag. It is.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By John Carr (anonymous) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 19:26:34

Isn't Pollstra the coach of the Miami Heat?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pipsqueek (anonymous) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 19:26:54

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By pip squeak and alfred (anonymous) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 20:04:09

I have an idea! we'll call a few hundred people and see what they think. Never mind the only people who a) own regular landline phones and b) are home enough to answer it are unemployed senior citizen. Fantastic sample of the population. This is no more or less balanced than an RTH poll would be! Or a spec poll!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 20:21:30

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Comment edited by hammy on 2011-01-14 20:23:57

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pipsqueek (anonymous) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 20:31:09

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 20:37:27

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By PeterF (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 21:53:07

@hammy so it is not OK to use our tax dollars to develop the WH but it fine to use tax dollars for a stadium for the Ticats. Really?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 22:19:18

Hammy said "Just see how much of the ff money you will see if the pan am games are lost due to your misguided views"

Yah, just like how RTH's misguided view was responsible for Hamilton losing the track and field events. Oh wait, that was the Tiger-Cats not wanting a track around the football field.

Or just like how RTH's misguided view was responsible for the last minute rejection of the stadium location that has been proposed for three, yes, that's right, three, international games. Oh wait, that was the Tiger-Cats double-crossing us again.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Steve (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 22:38:39

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 22:49:33

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 23:30:43

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 01:45:43

I'm an unemployed pensioner, & they didn't call me...; )
(Unless it was that person I hung up on?)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 08:18:14

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Lively (anonymous) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 09:10:47

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Simon B (anonymous) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 09:34:04

I get the feeling if this poll reaffirmed the beliefs of most people on this board we'd see it constantly being cited as "proof we're on the right side of the argument".

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mark-Alan Whittle (anonymous) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 09:55:41

The poll was just another waste of taxpayers money. What a rediculous way to run a city.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By qwerty (anonymous) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 12:34:53

A little birdie told me that the real behind the scenes deal going on here is Braley negotiaiting to buy the Ti-cats. Hence Bob Young's sudden change of heart.

He will then make a private sector contribution (something that is missing from all hamilton sites under consideration) in return for developing the new stadium on his lands near the airport. As the anchor tenant for his new business park, the stadium will spur on further development (ala Aldershot/Paletta). This is a logical investment scenario whereby a businessman could justify making such a large private sector contribution. It is a smart business play for him and a good city building initiative for the Hammer. A True Win-Win scenario.

I only hope it's true.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Avenger (anonymous) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 12:58:05

Qwerty you should try hanging out with different birdies...some that aren't quite as cuckoo as the last one.

If you think Braley is going to own 3 teams, you are nuts. If you think the CFL would allow that you are really nuts.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By George (registered) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 13:47:09

Frankly, I find that completely ridiculous.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Emptor (registered) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 14:06:33

I remember a poll that showed Eisenburgher and DiAnni neck and neck.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Emptor (registered) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 14:09:16

I would like to point out to those bitching about this site that they did present the poll results. I haven't seen them readily displayed on any of the other local sites.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 14:34:03

Yes, but then they undermine the poll results, simply because the results aren't what they wanted to hear.

Face it, you're in the minority here. You're a loud minority, but that's usually the case: you need to be loud, because you ARE the minority.

Comment edited by mb on 2011-01-15 14:34:41

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 16:32:53

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Comment edited by mb on 2011-01-15 16:34:11

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 17:01:28

Pretty clear point of view from the commisioner of the CFL.
Its not going to be WH hosting any CFL teams. IWS is not the prime location but it is the only affordable alternative for both the city and the team.
Guess we will just have to find something better for the WH.
We certainly don't want to be painted as the vilons by losing the cats and possibly a pro soccer team for the city. other wise WH might be vacant for another 20 yrs.
I really get the sense that the public and council has had enough of the RTH retoric regarding this issue.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 17:16:53

Agreed, Hammy.

Look, I'm all for getting rid of the old Rheem site, and putting the land to better use. But I've said all along (yes, even before the Ticats said they didn't like the site), that a stadium is NOT the solution. I was not a fan of East Mountain, just kind of thought it was a random site (chosen by the city to appease Bob Young, full well knowing that they would vote against it). Loved Aberdeen and Longwood, but agreed the price tag was far too much. My favourite is Confederation Park, but Mr. Collins obviously has something else planned for that site (thus the allegations of vote trading). As far as the current IWS site, I'm OK with it, as long as the Tiger-cats are sure they can be successful there.

Actually to be honest, the priority for downtown should be getting those vacant buildings up and running and getting rid of the halfway house. Opportunity for West Harbour will come, slowly but surely.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By adam2 (anonymous) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 17:41:49

Another priority for Hamilton as a whole should be to spread out social programs and housing across the entire city. Why should the downtown carry the entire weight of the social programs? Let's integrate people who rely on health care and social programs into some of these homogeneous communities. Segregation of poverty from wealth is falsely propping up these communities and then they complain their taxes are too high because they don't have any social housing and it is all downtown's fault.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Daveh (anonymous) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 19:51:43

To back up Adam2. A city cmap of group homes in Hamilton, make sure you zoom in for best results. I interpret the circles to represent the separation laws (ie. showing how it is ignored in many downtown and surrounding areas) http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/B1E52D68-8BC5-4245-B098-DBCE2376D75C/0/HAMRDFMapApr07.pdf

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Emptor (registered) | Posted January 16, 2011 at 14:35:10

Hammy, I don't understand your perspective at all, I used to at least think you Ticat fans had a perspective; but you don't, you're children lost in the forest. After all this time of regurgitating all the information bob young has been feeding you this last turn of events should make you feel pretty stupid and gullible. After all this time of everyone saying IW wouldn't work, you're back to IW? What possible sense does that make? And you're only proof that West harbor doesn't work are the opinions of the organization that said IW wouldn't work. As for the poll, I guess there are just a lot of people as misinformed as yourselves. Good luck finding your way out of the forest though.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 16, 2011 at 15:55:02

Emptor... ask any Ticat fan, and they'll tell you that IWS is definitely not the best solution. But it's better than the alternative, which is the Ticats leaving the city. But make no mistake, most Ticat fans would not blame Bob Young for moving the team, seeing how this city has villified him. Kudos to him for having patience.

Now, emptor, you say the only proof we have that West Harbour doesn't work is because Bob Young says it won't. Meanwhile, the only proof that YOU (and other WH supporters) have that WH will work, is the word of the city and it's politicians. What other proof do you have besides that?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 16, 2011 at 16:52:16

Emptor, you are the one miss informed. Their is no benifit in building a stadium at WH cause no one is gonna use it once the Pan Am games are over! In fact, if we end up with the WH plan B I beat the city gets nothing.
I would hope most of the people of RTH wouldn't want that for the city, or do they??
I really get the feeling their are some people with the RTH that don't care about the cats or what happens to them and our stadium issue.
Contrary to popular belief, you and the RTH do not run the city.
It would appear that some on this site are nothing more than a bunch of loud, obnoxious, self centred, ignorant people. If you don't get your way [WH], then your out to ruin it for the rest of the city.
Have a nice day.

Comment edited by hammy on 2011-01-16 17:22:50

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By give cats IWS and city builds at WH (anonymous) | Posted January 16, 2011 at 18:43:52

Since the TiCats want to develop the land around their stadium why not have the City of Hamilton give them IWS and all the land around it for free and lets them develop it as they see fit. The city would no longer subsidize the team but they are gaining a lot of real estate for free.

Then the city can have a 6,000 seat stadium at the waterfront for soccer and concerts and a spiced up velodrome linked to a community rec centre and remediated land and parks.

Cats get their stadium and then would need to show they can run a business on their own without continued subsidy.

Lets use the money for facilities that people can use instead of for seats in an already existing stadium for people to sit and drink beer 10 days a year.

More bang for the buck to use the fed, provincial and FF money for community use.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 16, 2011 at 18:55:23

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Emptor (registered) | Posted January 16, 2011 at 19:42:37

Mb and hammy, your position is that it is the best solution given the alternative of the ticats leaving. First of all let me say that at one point I did believe the WH to be the best location. I don't feel that way any more and for one reason, we had a very clear and defined path which revolved around city building at the WH which the Tiger cats didn't want. Bob Young and his supporters were quick to point out that he was a private enterprise and it was his right to look after his best interests. At that point I simply separated out the notion that what was best for the Tiger Cats was best for Hamilton. Like it or not, The Tiger Cats have struggled financially over the years, and yes, Confederation Park would have probably been the best spot for the Tiger Cats; but it's a great spot for a lot of things. Bob Youngs business model was to expand on fed/prove investment by creating an entertainment company, open restraunts, etc., etc. Basically, to open other businesses to bring in money to help offset his Ticat losses. How does that make the Tiger Cats themselves profitable. The Tiger Cats were clear, they cannot make money at IWS, are you doing them any justice by saying it's a good compromise? Five years down the road they will again be a struggling football team, in a struggling league, in a struggling city. Mb, I don't need proof about the viability of the Ticats at WH, I have simply said, they will always lose money so if they are going to need municipal funds, credits and favors, it should be in a location that also city builds. This may still happen at IWS stadium but the one thing we do know about IWS is that the Ticats can't make money there. That has been proven. Hammy, you're numbers are all make believe and only cause confusion. Chris Murray stated how hard pressed he would be to determine the true costs and economic benefits in only two weeks but he would do the best he could. Yet, you seem to know all of the numbers, face it, you're just wishful thinking. Looking at the potential at the West Harbour now, I think it's too good a location to waste on the Tiger Cats!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 16, 2011 at 20:23:05

I still don't see how WH stadium 'city builds'. We have an art gallery, Dundurn Castle, Whitehern, Canadian Football Hall of Fame, Hamilton Place, Copps Coliseum, and the Farmer's Market. Everything a mid-sized city like Hamilton would have downtown. But what have those done for our downtown? Our downtown is still struggling economically.

The ONLY way to fix downtown is to get people to actually live down there and bring in business.

THAT is city building. Not a quick fix, like you all think is needed.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Emptor (registered) | Posted January 16, 2011 at 21:01:19

Wb, nothing guaranteed, but it was a shot at gentrification for that area. There are several cities where this has worked, particularly on the waterfront, and I personally feel, it can happen at the WH. It can happen in a lot of ways though. Unfortunately, the stadium had one advantage, momentum. It will probably take council 50 years to come to a consensus on what to do down there now.
As for business, I'm a business owner in this city and I can tell you that the biggest piss off I have is the unbelievably high tax rate. You want businesses to locate here, have land ready and serviced, it's already reasonably priced, but you have to have low taxes. Stadiums only add to the business taxes if the economic benefit doesn't come to fruition.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 16, 2011 at 21:57:12

I agree with you on the taxes emptor. I' know a couple of out-of-town business owners who have said they'd love to move their business to Hamilton and have even looked into it, but the tax rate is too high.

Talk about turning businesses away at the door eh?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 17, 2011 at 01:14:00

Emptor, the numbers are right I have been following this a very long time.
Bob Y said himself after sharpening his pencil a 25,000 seat stadium at IW will work in todays market. With new tv revenues for the league and teams, less ticket give aways in the future, and less discounted tickets. Just look at Montreal, with a 20-25 thousand seat stadium they are doing well.
Bottom line is it really doesn't matter, most pro sports teams except for the leafs and canadians lose money in this Country. Should we abandon all sport? Hardly.
Bottom line is if there is a busniess plan that works for IW & Young, who are we to say other wise.
I agree with your WH point, lets do something important there that will draw people to the site weekly and not a dozen times a yr.
Other monies the stadium can generate. Well, anyone that has a youngster in rep. sports will tell you they spend a small fortune keeping arenas and soccer facilities going. My son played some serious soccer for 8 yrs. worked his way up to the provincial level playing 12 mths of the yr and played for multipule teams every winter. With special training, equipment, team fees, tournaments and travel the costs were staggering. After all the games, travelling to Quebec all over Ontario, his provincial squad played against team Canada's under 17 and won. We even travelled to Virgina, & Indiana one spring. After all that one of his best memories was playing net for Saltfleet A at Ivor Wynne when he was 15.
He is now 20 working full time and training to be a store manager.
I give credit to his dedication playing sports for his success in life at such a young age. Playing sports was certainly better than being glued to a computer as many kids are today.
Lets do it for the kids. They deserve the same chance many have had in the past.
A new stadium at IW is a win win for the entire community.

Comment edited by hammy on 2011-01-17 01:22:36

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted January 17, 2011 at 07:08:53

All the reasons you state are reasons why a 25,000 seat stadium would work just as well at WH, and WH has more parking and better highway access than IW, two of the things we were told were essential to the cats' financial sustainability. BY says alot of things, so your argument basically boils down to "yeah but he really means it this time."

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 17, 2011 at 07:35:30

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Comment edited by hammy on 2011-01-17 07:38:05

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted January 17, 2011 at 08:29:57

Your wasting your time here posting zombie lies about lack of parking and accessibility at WH. That might work at ticat nation and the spec, but those lies have been refuted numerous times.

And of course a brand new stadium will cost more, but the upside is we'll have new stadium funded in large part by upper levels of govt, as opposed to the half a stadium we'd be getting at IW, the other half of which we'll have to pay for on our own a few years down the road.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a 25,000 seat stadium at WH is the best of all possible worlds, just pointing out the absurdity of your faith-based arguments in favor of the Bratina/Young IW deal. And the fact that you had to play the "won't someone please think of the children!" card, further points out the bankruptcy of your argument. If you were truly concerned about young athletes, you'd support a 6,000 seat stadium at WH.

Comment edited by highwater on 2011-01-17 08:37:17

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 17, 2011 at 08:49:53

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 17, 2011 at 09:30:53

Ryan... last Canada Day, my family and I watched fireworks at Bayfront Park. It is the last time that will be happening. It took us an hour and a half just to get out of that area of the city.

4700 parking spots? Maybe (but as Hammy said, numbers are skewed) But easily accessible? No.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 17, 2011 at 10:22:49

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 17, 2011 at 10:23:32

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 17, 2011 at 10:34:53

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 17, 2011 at 10:35:40

Ryan... if your site has a code of conduct policy... what about the guy that wrote 'F--- you' 3 times in a post, directed to Bob Young, Scott Mitchell, and Mark Cohon? Why wasn't he banned? Was he even warned?

Just wondering. I saw the post after the 'Mark Cohon is evil for simply stating his opinion as commissioner of the CFL' article.

Or do you just ban people who don't agree with WH?

Comment edited by mb on 2011-01-17 10:36:29

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 17, 2011 at 10:42:44

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 17, 2011 at 10:47:38

So, was he warned?

And you still haven't commented on my Canada Day anecdote. There's no proof like personal experience. One way roads in, One way roads out. PEOPLE WERE PO'D!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted January 17, 2011 at 11:19:50

TURBOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Getting bored with trolling the Spectator? It's just not nearly as much fun there now is it??

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hahaha (anonymous) | Posted January 17, 2011 at 11:31:27

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 17, 2011 at 12:55:12

Ryan... I wasn't asking if Allan Taylor was warned. I was asking if the guy who wrote 'F--- you' to Bob Young, Scott Mitchell, and Mark Cohon (to each one seperately). Especially considering Bob Young is a user and poster on this site, shouldn't that person be warned?

You make some very good points about access to West Harbour. As much as I don't like WH, I also was not a big fan of East Mountain either. I believe it was chosen by the city as an alternative to appease the Ticats, full well knowing council would vote it down in the long run. The Ticats didn't stand a chance did they?

I guess my problem with this site is that

1)it believes that WH is the ONE AND ONLY site in the city that would work. 2)you are tired of the city subsidizing the Ticats, yet have no interest in setting up the Ticats to be successful (I have written to council on this with no response...hhmmmmm) 3)you believe the city actually has your best interest at heart

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 17, 2011 at 20:52:19

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 18, 2011 at 17:03:51

To those commenting on the time it takes to exit Bayfront Park after the Canada Day fireworks - there are by conservative estimate 100,000 people who attend this event.

Not really comparable to a Ti-Cat game.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 18, 2011 at 19:17:58

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Comment edited by hammy on 2011-01-18 19:18:20

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Big Al (anonymous) | Posted January 20, 2011 at 04:56:08

Time to get real.

BOBBY told us that IW was a no go because he was losing $3million per year. He also said that it was the site and not the product. He wants more box seats and will give up seats to get it. So, what do get?

We get a quick reno of a building that the city did not want to repair,

We are now told that what was called prohibtive to repair is now venerable.

Ticket prices are going up and the cheap seats are being replaced with priced out of OUR range FATCAT corporate boxes.

and the kicker - the taxpayers will pay for an increased subsidy to keep the money losing team in HAMILTON, and councillors will spin it as a good deal.

Pity only in Hamilton......................

.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 20, 2011 at 08:27:56

Get over it. This is the only option of the table that will work.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted January 20, 2011 at 08:32:17

Get over it. This is the only option of the table that will work.

That's what they said about EM, Confederation, CP, Aldershot...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 20, 2011 at 08:58:52

What was said a yr. ago, half a yr. ago means nothing today. We are out of time, the best and most affordable option on the table is IW, so just get over it already.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted January 20, 2011 at 09:30:22

Keep going...

What was said a yr. ago, half a yr. ago, 3 months ago, a month ago, a couple of weeks ago means nothing today.

Conclusion, what BY says about which stadiums will work means nothing.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 20, 2011 at 13:44:33

NoBrainer, great name. For the record, most of the stadium opinions on this site are of little value to the general public and our city as a whole.

Comment edited by hammy on 2011-01-20 13:46:04

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By secret society (anonymous) | Posted January 20, 2011 at 18:18:03

"When and where do you guys hold meetings?"?

In a secret bunker on the moon.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 20, 2011 at 18:43:24

s/s seriously do you guys have meetings? It might be refreshing for all to have someone participate with an objective point of view.

Comment edited by hammy on 2011-01-20 18:47:42

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Resident (anonymous) | Posted January 20, 2011 at 19:53:41

hammy/drmopar sorry you're out of luck, the meetings are only for residents of Hamilton. How are things in Brantford tonight.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 20, 2011 at 21:38:35

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Resident (anonymous) | Posted January 20, 2011 at 21:59:25

Sorry drmopar but Brantford is not part of Hamilton.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 20, 2011 at 23:35:53

Resident, I will asume that isn't your real name. I guess you don't know were the mt. is. Not surprising, your probably just another downtown isolated WH dreamer.
By the way, how is Fred doing after the big loss?
That had to be tuff for him and you WH supporters to swallow.
I'll bet you kind of new right then that it was game over right, kind of like check mate.
Better luck next time, NOT.

Comment edited by hammy on 2011-01-20 23:41:06

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By The English Language (anonymous) | Posted January 21, 2011 at 01:33:18

Ouch, that hurt!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Resident (anonymous) | Posted January 21, 2011 at 08:24:04

Actually drmopar I live on the East Mountain and I don't know Fred but apparently he has a new job and is doing well. I've never claimed to support or dream about the west harbour. All I've done is call you out as being the obnoxious drmopar from the Ti-Cats forum and not being a resident of Hamilton.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By say what (anonymous) | Posted January 21, 2011 at 10:10:40

And apparently you've guessed incorrectly.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 22, 2011 at 20:29:03

Sure - if you don't count the 4,700 parking spots within easy walking distance of the site.

OK, I just looked at the list of parking spots.

JACKSON SQUARE?? THE ART GALLERY?? You consider that walking distance?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 23, 2011 at 15:42:10

It isn't walking distance for the majority. Especially those in a wheel chair.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds