Pan Am D-Day

Today's the day, folks. After months of speculation, council will be voting on the location of the Pan Am stadium. I've been told that today's meeting will be long and full of fireworks.

I thought I would keep you updated throughout the day on the blog - so check back in periodically to see how things are going.

9:47 - Chris Murray, the city manager, is kicking things off with a general presentation about the games.
Brad Clark has already voiced some opposition about the closed-door portion of the meeting later today. He argued that there was very little confidential information to discuss, so council should address it in public. The city's legal staff shot that suggestion down.

9:56 - City finance guy Rob Rossini says it would cost $18 to $20 million to keep Ivor Wynne going over the next 10 years. Beyond 10 years, the city could spend as much as $93 million. A new stadium will cost $128 million, $55 million of which will be city money.

10:15 - Some councillors are already on the offensive. Sam Merulla just asked a very pointed question about whether the Pan Am stadium will be area rated (like Ivor Wynne).

10:42 - The consultant from Deloitte just finished going through the details of his report. Lots of councillors are waiting to speak - but first out the gate is (you guessed it) Merulla.  He's asking (none too politely) about how many days the stadium will be in use per year.

11:52 - Council members are still asking questions about the Deloitte report. We still have to get through public delegations, the debate, and the in-camera session.
Lloyd Ferguson just brought up the parking issue - he said his residents support the west harbour location, but "they wonder what we're smoking down here" that so few parking spots are on the table.

12:35 - Moving very, very slowly along. We're starting to hear public delegations right now. First up is Chamber of Commerce CEO John Dolbec, who is endorsing the West Harbour location. Other delegates included Andrew Iler from the National Cycling Centre, Tom Cooper from the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction and Kathy Drewitt from the downtown BIA.

2:08 - The public delegations are finally finished. At this rate, this meeting won't be finished until 7 p.m. Everyone is taking a much-needed half-hour break.

2:45 - We're back. Apparently some councillors have to leave around 3:30 - so in the interest of time, they're voting on the location of the stadium right now.

3:28 - We're very, very close to the vote. Councillor Brian McHattie just announced he will oppose the West Harbour spot because he's concerned his colleagues will push for more parking spots. He says his support of West Harbour is contingent on alternative means of transportation taking a leading role.

3:34 - It's official - the stadium will be at the West Harbour. Council has gone into camera for a deeper look at some remediation issues.

Here's the count:
For:

Collins
Duvall
Ferguson
Jackson
Morelli
Pasuta
Pearson
Powers
Whitehead
Eisenberger

Against:
Bratina
Clark
McCarthy
McHattie
Merulla

Absent:
MItchell

6:10 - Council is still in camera and I'm about ready to pack it in for the night. Stay tuned to tomorrow's paper for John Kernaghan's summary of the vote, my look at what's next for the velodrome and Andrew Dreschel's column about yesterday's meeting. Thanks for checking in!

Comments

[Tom Robertson]

Mitchell should be producing a doctor's note to his employer (his constituents) why he wasn't there for this critical vote so they could see what stance he was taking on the issue.

[Mike Russell]

I am very happy to see that they made the right choice with regard to the location. Now my concern is that they actually build something that the citizens of this city can be proud of and not some mickey mouse structure as some of the councillors are proposing. Building a stadium with 15 or 20 thousand seats would be a waste of money. It will not address the needs of the primary tenant the Tiger Cats. Anything less than 30 thousand seats is unaccptable and my preference would be 40 thousand seats. New construction is cheaper than adding to it later. Find the money and do it right the first time.

[Markalanwhittle]

I wonder what remediation concerns took more than two and a half hours to discuss?

Only really bad news could take that long to explain.

Bada bing, bada bang, bada boondoggle.

[Yves Dubeau]

What we seem to have forgotten is the fact that by not having Confederation park as a possible option for a stadium we should all thank Chad Collins for the incremental cost of land cleanup. This additional cost is estimated between $10-$35 million dollars, plus the cost of the land and let's not forget expropriation costs. All of that added to the taxpayers. By having Confederation park being part of the equation these costs might not be there. Well done Collins, next time you hear Chad blowing his horn in regards to be for the city as a whole you should call him on his B.S !!!!!!!!!!

[Tom Robertson]

I'm for a beach not a stadium or hotel at Confederation park. What will happen if we just build on the clean land and not rehabilitate the polluted ones we have?

[Matt Jelly]

I'm happy that the Pan Am will be at this site- I share Brian McHattie's concerns about parking and transit, but I'd rather the Stadium go downtown than anywhere else. I just can't see how it would benefit the City at large if it goes to an area out of the earshot of Hamilton's cultural and commercial heartbeat.

Here's hoping that the stadium development works in tandem with existing downtown businesses and amenities instead of creating a silo of development that detracts from what's already in the area.

I'm supportive of this development, but I also understand how mega-projects like this can go horribly wrong if the planning isn't careful. My support is contingent on the final result, not on my expectations of what it should be. It's up to the community to ensure that this development happens in a way that works for everyone.

Council has made the decision- and while that decision may not be one that everyone agrees with, let's make the best of this. Let's make sure this project produces the most benefit for the community surrounding it. Let's make it work.

People have pointed to the remediation costs as a reason to oppose this site, but if the site isn't dealt with now, when are we ever again going to be in a position where the funds are available from other levels of government to do this work? It seems some folks are fine with this massive contaminated property sitting idle for years and decades to come. Maybe I missed something?