Comment 31394

By what controversy? (anonymous) | Posted May 29, 2009 at 16:07:45

We are discussing a huge consipiracy to get people to admire our waterfalls?

Ms Chapman, a woman I have great respect ofr is right in bringing the issue forward given her position on the committee. But I think how it has been taken by others is causing undue dammage to an intiative which is trying to promote a great aspect of Hamilton.

That does not give it a pass to give different standards to people depending on their lobby, but we should not be so quick to mangle an opportunity when someone wishes to spearhead a way to promote Hamilton without changing or "developing" it.

People should check out his site and learn more before making too many judgments. I doubt the use of his seats has made any polititian reevaluate his priorites in favour of waterfalls. A bit of inpropriety but not worth ending all future waterfall endeavors.

I for one am not too concerned if he does get some spin off marketing income somehow at a later date if he can help make Hamilton a City of waterfalls rather than a city of roadways and empty smokestacks.

Note I have never met Mr. Ecklund nor am I a part of his work.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds