Friday, March 12, 2010

Harbouring Doubt

As much as I would like to see a stadium built in a location that would help us draw people to the downtown core, there is suffcient cause for concern. The cost of remediation being a major consideration, further aggravated by the wild card nature of not knowing how bad and costly it is going to be.

Parking is another big issue and while constrained parking availability may force people to use alternate forms of transportation (which on the face of it, is not a bad thing, but may introduce logistical nightmares and adverse consequences), the question of whether that will put a damper on the whole idea and perhaps dissuade interest on many levels, is a valid concern.

I know The Mayor wants to make this work, and I can respect the reasons as to why. One one level, this is about trade-offs; some very significant. For example, are you willing to walk away from the prospect of a private/public partnership, or a private venture that may more easily be had at the Confederation site, in favour of holding fast to the advantages of having the stadium near to the core? What are naming rights worth, compared to what they may be worth if at another location?

A "Plan B", for the West Harbour may pose issues inofitself in terms of timing. We may need to flip any plan B to become plan A very soon, as time is of the essence. I hope we have examined every viable option  through the lens of a  business case.  The risk profiles of each option and the pros and cons, can be best understood through a comparative business case for each and weighted criteria. I hope we have done that sufficiently.

With the prospect for great success on this, comes a possibility of great failure. It's not an easy decision. I don't fault the Mayor, council, staff or anyone on this. I'm just saying- let's do this with eyes open and with the benefit of a comparative analysis that is thorough and well considered.

In the end, I fully appreciate that The Mayor, council and staff are trying to land at the right place. The "unknown factor" of the cost of remediation may serve up a risk that is indigestible to a rationale person. But let's see how this nets out when factoring in all the other variables. You can't get there, inteligently at least, until we do a proper business case comparative analysis.

I hope we have done our homework and notwithstanding. I truly want to see us succeed in this.

Your thoughts?

17 comments:

  1. Cal. It's all a guess until all the information is known. I think what you are suggesting is the way to go. I hope they don't hire another dam consulting firm though.

    Elvis P.
    ReplyDelete
  2. The remediation will have to be done no matter what, so why not do it in conjunction with the building of a stadium and the associated facilities.

    The other sites mentioned will also require remediation since they are current or former industrial sites. As long as they are looking at former industrial sites it is going to cost more.

    At least with the West Harbour site it may contribute to the revitalization of an area of the downtown that wouldn't otherwise be done. At least not in the near future.
    ReplyDelete
  3. The doubt and fear at this point, or proposing alternative sites, won't actually result in the stadium being put at an alternative site.

    The only "change" if remediation proves too much (and I don't count 35 million as prohibitive in the long run - that property needs to be cleaned up anyway, and it won't be done for decades otherwise) is that it goes to the Airport. Do we really want that for the city?

    And do we want to cater to private business interests who want a more highway-visible location? Is the benefit for the city going to be so much greater if these people are catered too?

    The site chosen is the West Harbour. Build it there. The 12 homes that will need to be moved, the remediation costs, and the alternative sites are just sidetracking issues at this point. Get it done and do it well - it's been decided.
    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with Meredith and the first anon poster. We have to deal with remediation costs anyway, either at this site eventually, or at the other sites proposed. The fears over remediation costs are just a smokescreen for the private sector's true goal: highway visibility, which is *not* in the general public's best interest, and we're the ones footing the majority of the bill.
    ReplyDelete
  5. It was the private sector that created these lands that need rehabilitation, but avoid them like a plague and want to use clean land when they want to develop anything. We will leave our children all these polluted lands in the city while south of highway 53 will become the industrial core polluting more land. Could our Mayor or any Councillors go into an environmental studies class at a city school and tell the students they do not support cleaning up the pollution of city properties. After all don't we want this to be the best place to raise a child? Yes it is going to cost money. At what point will any clean up begin? How much longer will it take for the leachate from these properties find its way into the cracks in our fresh water mains? Now when they avoided making any proposals while the decision on the stadium was being made these anonymous investor jump in to disrupt the process. They are looking to grab taxpayers dollars to build what they want where they want. I am sure they will have strings attached to their small investment in which they will want total control or maybe even ownership of the new stadium. Will they also be paying to build the velodrome on the site they chose or even want it there? These so called investors aren't even brave enough to come out of their closets and put names and faces to their proposals since there doesn't seem to be any environmental consciousness among them. Cal are you in favour of only developing on clean land to avoid clean up costs? What message would you be giving the environmental studies students when you visit them? Council should have no dealings with these carpetbaggers and tell them to take a hike. It would be unethical and immoral for anyone on council or staff to have any discussion with these people until they are willing to make their names and proposal public.
    ReplyDelete
  6. I wonder if the core samples from the Rheem stadium site will end up like the core samples Bree-X used to fool investors?

    Salt-me-that.

    According to a construction union thingy thousands of green jobs will be created cleaning up this toxic, in-filled swamp-land.

    Which begs the question, are these jobs full-time with years of work ahead of them?

    Hopefully some of these questions will be answered before we vote in the fall.

    No wonder only one person has signed up to take on the Mayor, it's going to take someone with broad shoulders to carry the ball going forward.

    Good luck with that.
    ReplyDelete
  7. Tom Robertson asked " Cal are you in favour of only developing on clean land to avoid clean up costs? What message would you be giving the environmental studies students when you visit them?"

    Tom - In spirit, I wish we could make the West Harbour site a success because I realize the value it would bring to a transformation of the core.

    What I am in favour of is an informed decision that weighs all the alternatives using a business case approach. Such an approach would tease out all the strengths, weaknesses and risks to each option. Perhaps this has been done and they landed on West Harbour and perhaps the remediation risk was deemed to be tolerable when factoring in the overall strength of the option. I can't say as I am not privy to that information.

    To answer your question, I do see the value of cleaning up sites and turning them around. I don't think i said otherwise, but was signlaing that there are risks and considerations that ought to be weighed in a comprehensive way. Maybe that's been done.

    Cal
    ReplyDelete
  8. To The Hamiltonian...The decision has been made on the west harbour site. We cannot have politicians changing their minds on this decision because some latecomers who remained silent during the debates come up with a proposal a few months later. What happens now if in three months time a new group comes in with a sweeter offer does council change its mind again. This will result in nothing getting done and we will find the Pan-am committee backing out of all its commitments to Hamilton and move all the sites to Oakville or Guelph. It is time to pay for our sins for polluting our properties. In your reply it seems to me to be a typical politicians answer. You say you are in favour of cleaning up the sites but also would support other options on clean sites that are financially more favourable. You also failed to mention what commitment you would give to our students that we are trying to teach to be environmentally responsible but don't follow up with our actions. Everyone gave the Crawl group a pat on the back for taking their garbage bags on the last outing to pick up papers and coffee cups. The environmental clean up of this city goes a lot deeper than that.
    ReplyDelete
  9. Tom:

    You are putting spin on my words. I think what I said is clear.

    Cal
    ReplyDelete
  10. Everyone, and I mean everyone, seems to have forgotten that in the summer of 2009, after more than 5 years of study and community input, Council passed an Urban Official Plan which put 2000 houses in the area now proposed for a stadium. Houses that will pay taxes. Houses that will mandate the clean-up. Houses that will hold 4000-5000 people, who, living within blocks of the core, will do much more for the centre of the City than a stadium which brings people to it maybe 20 times a year. No one will ever build a new restaurant because of that kind of volume of customers. Toronto has proved over and over that bringing people to live in the centre of the City is what gives you a vibrant inner city. Its homes not games that will make the difference.
    ReplyDelete
  11. To the Hamiltonian...Yes your words have left me spinning. With the number of words you have used I see no clear cut position. It seems that the art of plain speaking has been lost. And people now tend to rely on the theory that "bullsh*t baffles brains". Where do we get a clear position on where you stand when in the opening statement you offer a flip flop between plan "A" and plan "B". The last statement you made in your reply to me is no clear cut position as you say you support cleaning up sites but leave it open what sounds to me like you are open to less environmentally friendly options.

    "To answer your question, I do see the value of cleaning up sites and turning them around. I don't think i said otherwise, but was signlaing that there are risks and considerations that ought to be weighed in a comprehensive way. Maybe that's been done."

    The most honest answer of few words to a question someone can give is yes or no. So I will ask you this if you were on council when then choice of site was being made would you have voted in favour of the west harbour.

    You also continued to avoid the issue of the environmental legacy you want to leave our children and grandchildren. Do you think we should begin the clean up now or pass the buck onto them to deal with it all?
    ReplyDelete
  12. Tom:

    Respectfully, I won't be bated on this site. It's not its purpose.

    Cal
    ReplyDelete
  13. Alasdair RathboneMar 15, 2010 07:45 AM
    We cannot allow the perception that a nefarious bunch of back room businessmen have complete control over the city. If they want input, they need to come forward.

    Lets not forget, this stadium is being built with mostly public money and should not be dictated by the private sector. That is not to say that we should not consult and achieve compromise with them, but the manner in which this is occurring is unacceptable, and I'm sure I am not the only Hamiltonian who thinks they should come forward or shut up.
    ReplyDelete
  14. Tommy R. I got a grade 12 and the rest I learned from life. I know what Cal said; pretty easy to figure out.
    Elvis P.
    ReplyDelete
  15. Hamiltonian...I am not here to bate you but rather DEbate on the positions and statements you made here.
    ReplyDelete
  16. "In spirit, I wish we could make the West Harbour site a success because I realize the value it would bring to a transformation of the core." - Cal

    The location is good, with lots of potential to be tied in to downtown etc... The design of the stadium and the required infrastructure improvements (street/landscape design for James North, transit link etc...) will have the biggest impact on this. Build a stadium to suit the location and tie it into downtown successfully and I think it will be a success.

    All that may be easier said than done in Hamilton though.
    ReplyDelete
  17. Mr. DiFalco, this Hamiltonian thing you have going here is a real force. Take a look at this, your headline was copied http://www.thespec.com/article/740059

    Rog
    ReplyDelete

Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints, spirited discussion and even pointed comments are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will simply not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.


Comments posted on this blog, may be used as excerpts in whole or in part, in other media sources .
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.

Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)