Sports

Committee Votes to Explore Innovation Park Stadium Site

By RTH Staff
Published August 31, 2010

City Councillors voted 13-2 in today's committee of the whole meeting to direct staff to spend the next two weeks hammering out a proposal on putting the Pan Am stadium in the Aberdeen-Longwood area of McMaster Innovation Park. Only Councillors Brian McHattie (Ward 1) and Sam Merulla (Ward 4) voted against it.

A second motion by McHattie that no Future Fund money should go to the MIP site was defeated 13-2.

McHattie argued against threatening the innovation employment lands for a stadium, and Merulla has been steadfastly opposed to spending city money on a Pan Am stadium.

13 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Go GO (anonymous) | Posted August 31, 2010 at 13:38:20

Bend over North End... we're getting it up the azz again!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted August 31, 2010 at 13:48:36

I love how the Spec spins it... "Council supports Longwood site" I believe is the title of their article. Yawn!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By cityfan (registered) | Posted August 31, 2010 at 14:13:37

Longwood is the word alright! Bob is giving it to council and getting what he wants....It's Bob World and in the end is where we are taking it!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Centrist (registered) | Posted August 31, 2010 at 14:38:44

I thought the innovation park was supposed to be for.. innovation? Not a home for a 20th century sports franchise that's on its last legs. Seriously, can this city ever make the right decision about anything?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By FenceSitter (anonymous) | Posted August 31, 2010 at 14:55:31

Fair enough Centrist. One could argue that for City building, East Mountain is better than MIP.

EM may take the place of a big box store. Not too bad a loss.

But I would like to know what other people think about this. Is the MIP plan for real? Does it have the support of the councillors? OR are we just buying a little more time?

There is no end to the madness!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By arienc (registered) | Posted August 31, 2010 at 15:07:16

FenceSitter...I think once the negatives of the MIP site are exposed, I believe that Council and the Cats together, will start looking at other options.

From a city building standpoint, I think even the East Mountain site is preferrable.

I still think that it can be done at Confederation Park on the footprint of the waterpark, or even better, just south of that at Centennial and the rail line. That would be a better site than East Mountain or MIP, from both the city's and the Cats' perspective.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 31, 2010 at 15:15:10

-from a previous post

While I believe that the West Harbour is a far superior site to Longwood, I think I could live with it, especially if they route LRT on the south side of the 403 and then north along Longwood back to Main.

In any event, my major concern here is that we might just be being setup again. Despite Bob Young's letter, there's no guarantee that this site will work for the Tiger-Cats AND McMaster AND the City. And what if it doesn't?

Without a "default" position, it's definitely in Young's best interest to pull another last minute double-cross and say "Oh well, Longwood didn't work it's off to one of my favoured car-centric, downtown-killing sites". This might well be simply a stalling tactic until after October's election.

I take no comfort in the "mutually agreeable to the city and the Tiger-Cats" clause because to gutless windmills like Whitehead, Jackson and, heaven forbid, DiIanni "mutually agreeable" means anything the Tiger-Cats demand.

We already know that the West Harbour is satisfactory to HostCo with the Tiger-Cats as tenants. In order to force Young to pursue Longwood "in good faith" and avoid a repeat of recent history, Council needs to require that he agree to the West Harbour as the "fallback" position. Without that commitment, it's in his best interests NOT to make this work.

I realize that some people will say "but that gives the City the upper hand". Precisely, we're the ones who are paying the bill.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted August 31, 2010 at 15:47:00

what a mess

NO STADIUM

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By notalemming (registered) | Posted September 01, 2010 at 01:14:25

I think council should read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." Instead of driving the debt slave machine they should be concentrating on making this city safe for cycling in light of Peak Oil. I'm starting to wonder if some of the writers on this forum are schizophrenic.

Comment edited by notalemming on 2010-09-01 00:15:10

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MisDustrial (anonymous) | Posted September 01, 2010 at 08:01:09

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 Andrea (registered) | Posted September 01, 2010 at 12:03:48

Really? I don't see it that way at all. Fred didn't 'roll'; he did his job. He publicly stated that he is still supportive of the WH but he would not stand in the way of investigation into mutually agreeable sites. He isn't a dictator, he has to exhibit a reasonable degree of willingness to move forward. It's not beneficial for the City to sit at a stalemate. In regards to the MIP site, he said it was at a very preliminary stage and has its challenges.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted September 01, 2010 at 15:35:07

Last week the Mayor was "stubborn" and "intransigent" and this week he's "rolled" and "flip-flopped". Which one is it?

Considering Council's gutless windmills waving in the breeze and those who seem to think Mississauga's a role model for Hamilton, I think Fred Eisenberger did a great job standing up to Bob Young and the Tiger-Cats' campaign of misinformation.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By pddd (registered) | Posted September 01, 2010 at 17:25:28

I ,as well, believe that Fred Eisenberger has made the best of a very difficult situation. I still think that the West Harbour site would be better, but the MIP site is a lot better than the East Mountain site. I would suggest that, if the MIP site is chosen, perhaps some research facilities could be located at the West Harbour site.

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