The Pan Am stadium debate seems to be fraying the nerves and tempers of city council members.
Yesterday's meeting to name Michael Fenn as the new facilitator got a little testy on several occasions. Councillors were interrupting each other, speaking out of turn, and seemed generally aggravated. Councillor Terry Whitehead captured the mood of the meeting when Councillor Maria suggested the deadline for facilitation should fall on an existing council meeting date -- something that could be changed by a "friendly amendment." That prompted Whitehead to quip, "Shouldn't we call it an "angry amendment?"
Councillor Sam Merulla has suggested several times over the past few days that council is getting sidetracked by the Pan Am Stadium issue.
Do you agree with Merulla? Is this issue attracting too much of council's attention? Or is it worth the time to sort out the stadium location?"
Not everyone is happy that the Pan Am games are coming, it takes away dollars that could be better spent to help others in out community that are struggling.
But then if one speaks out the Pan Am games,you could be deemed as being engaged in a hate crime for advocating for those that go without.
It is ridiculous that after two years, all the money spent, that this community cannot agree. If the Ti Cats were not ahppy, why went to the last second, or what that the plan all along.
Get it together people. Too many are suffering in our community.
Posted by: Michelle Hruschka | 05/20/2010 at 12:21 PM
Another public display of how dysfunctional this current bunch of politicians are. To avoid any further distractions council should just reaffirm its original decision to build on the west harbour site and get on with other city business.
Posted by: Tom Robertson | 05/20/2010 at 12:33 PM
No I do not agree with Mr Merulla. I believe this impasse on the West Harbor for the stadium is a reflection on the inept council and the lack of leadership of this Mayor. The West Harbor { in my opinion} is absolutely the best location, but it will not happen; pretty soon with all this dithering we will lose it to Toronto who are waiting and laughing.
Posted by: Kathy Hagan | 05/20/2010 at 04:57 PM
I like Tom's logic on this one...if Council is distracted it's because it has distracted itself with its "Full Steam Ahead" but "Not sure where we're heading" philosophy!!!
Posted by: JMZ | 05/20/2010 at 05:33 PM
It's election year. Councilors are sitting on the fence until their special interest groups tell them how to vote
Posted by: Tom Robertson | 05/20/2010 at 06:25 PM
In fact the comment was made by me at the end of the meeting to inject some levity into what was at times a heated debate. I know that the reporter is an admirer of the good Councillor, but comic relief is not his particular forte. Ms. Reilly might have commented on the Mayor's attempt during the meeting to block the information regarding the relevance of the May 17th deadline. His "point of order" claimed that the email response to Council on my request for the relevance of the May 17th date was confidential and should not be revealed, at which point David Adames gladly clarified the issue, indicating clearly that May 17 was not about a final site decision, but rather an opportunity to discuss progress among the parties.
Posted by: Bob Bratina | 05/20/2010 at 07:03 PM
It's only distracting because they have allowed themselves to be distracted. I don't blame council at all for this nonsense, the blame lies with Bob Young and the TiCats.
They had 2 years to articulate to the city what they were looking for in a stadium and failed to do so. From what I have been reading the TiCats still don't know what they want.
The city council did things right for a change and now they are being unfairly blamed for the TiCats dithering. City council spent 2 years doing their research and finally decided on a location. They should stick to the decision. There should be no facilitator and no negotiations. Just procede with what has already been decided.
Posted by: Mike Russell | 05/20/2010 at 08:54 PM
No I do not agree with Mr Merulla. I believe this impasse on the West Harbor for the stadium is a reflection on the inept council and the lack of leadership of this Mayor. The West Harbor { in my opinion} is absolutely the best location, but it will not happen; pretty soon with all this dithering we will lose it to Toronto who are waiting and laughing.
Posted by: frs | 05/20/2010 at 10:19 PM
Mr.Bratina...I don't think Emma's story was about the one comment but rather about unprofessional behavior the whole bunch of you showed once again. Don't try to make yourself look so innocent here.
Posted by: Tom Robertson | 05/21/2010 at 04:19 AM
Ahhhhh....the circus is in town...oh wait...that is just Hamilton Council with its regular meetings.
Hard to tell the difference..Merulla and Morelli both drag their knuckles on the ground.
Allison Gowling
Posted by: Allison Gowling | 05/21/2010 at 01:21 PM
I still think the best location for the Stadium would be Confederation Park. I don't understand how one Councillor that being Chad Collins had the power to knock it off the list of locations before it had a chance to be considered.
That might have been the problem from the start.
And I partially agree with Sam but the people of the City of Hamilton do not need two sludge incinerators and he appears to be advocating for that.
Posted by: Burke Austin | 05/22/2010 at 11:11 AM
" Interrupting each other speaking out of turn" is par for the course with this abysmal inept council. Now Mr bratina feels the need to interject here and claim responsibility for the remark. What? he didn't have any pencils to to throw?
All I can say about my councilman who is supposed to work for his constituents is this. Try and get him to respond to his constituents e mails, he will ignore them yet he feels the need to clarify stuff here!!
Roll on fall and we can turf you out.
Posted by: Kathy Hagan | 05/24/2010 at 07:37 PM