So here we are, back at where we started. As soon as the band starts playing and the victory celebration began, some asshole throws a skunk into the middle of the crowd and pandemonium breaks out. Could there possibly be a better way to describe what has happened this week?
There we were last week celebrating another deal that the city and the Tiger-Cats agree on, to find out as usual that things weren't what they cracked up to be. We were under the impression that a renovation of Ivor Wynne Stadium, with Brian Timmis sacrificed for parking, would actually save money, especially when there's no purchase of land required, no remediation required and all we'd need is a temporary facility for the Tiger-Cats to play while the stadium would be rebuilt. Then we find out that there's a shortfall of almost $40 million.
Now this shortfall is very confusing, especially when the land is already bought and paid for and no land remediation is required. So the question is how did this become the most expensive option? Councillor Lloyd Ferguson opined that the numbers coming from Infrastructure Ontario estimating the job are intentionally overinflated as a precaution. Either way, there are red flags flying all over the place and everyone is panicking, except for those sitting in city council, having passed a resolution that makes Ivor Wynne Stadium the preferred site, the city's contribution capped at $45 million and removes the West Harbour as a plan B site.
That and a list of requests made by the Tiger-Cats, including the building of a office facility to move the club offices to the new stadium site, has raised a few eyebrows and has everyone left wondering what the hell happened. The answers will come, but slowly.
So now the city has gone all in for the Ivor Wynne location, having run out of time. But will they be able to get the money they're looking for? Perhaps our political superstar (AKA Sophia Aggelontis) could step in and save the day, since the Feds are busy playing reindeer games of their own. Either way, this could be our last chance to make something happen.
One thing is for sure. It didn't have to be this way. Eisenberger ran a gambit assuming that he could gain the upper hand and failed, leaving us with an uneasy legacy, thanks to his leadership.
-Loved your opening paragraph. Great stuff.
ReplyDelete-I've heard some 'interesting' things about Eisenberger. Specifically his tendency to not listen, to not collaborate...to 'not play well with others'. This is fine if you have the goods, have a commanding presence, etc. (I'm thinking of a few examples, but the problem with citing examples is that if the reader doesn't like the example you're citing, everything ends right there. So let's just say that I can think of a few mayors in a few cities over a few years who would have pulled off what Mayor Fred had been attempting to.
-I feel rather sad as an objective observer (read that as: 'not caught up emotionally in this circus') that people are finally beginning to understand just how badly this effort has veered. Moreover, I'm a little anxious that this fiasco will only reinforce the 'Can't Do' perception Hamiltonians have about themselves, their city, their government. (Don't get me started about how 'outsiders' see it all. In truth, they don't care. In just the same way that nobody really cares about anyone anywhere else. And I'm only being slightly glib.)
...and all we can do now is talk of what could have been.
ReplyDeleteNah. Because that would mean you'd be sounding like an ardent RTHer.
ReplyDeleteWe need to examine what happened...no matter if IWS goes through...we need to re-frame our efforts forward...and we need to use this interlude as a launching-off point for an evolved dialogue. (Which I'll be addressing on my blog...shortly.)
You know, there's an expression that goes something like this: 'Small minds talk about people, bigger minds talk about events and great minds talk about ideas.' I believe this can be transferred to this situation, even if we're just talking about moving forward. The small minds in Hamilton will continue to denigrate, demonize and lambaste those people they identify as having 'screwed-up'. The bigger minds will get caught up in the 'Imbroglio That Was The PanAm Games Site Selection Process', as well as speculate as to 'what could have been', the usual urban-planning-wannabes navel-gazing to the extreme. Meanwhile, the work of putting it all in context and actually learning something valuable from it all will be left to those amongst us who are a little more mature, with a little more scope.
Naturally, I include you in that group. : )
By the way... Did you see Mark Cripps' editorial on all this in the Stoney Creek News and brother and sister Metroland publications?
ReplyDeleteI've called Fred Eisenberger out many times for his lack of imagination and vision. I considered his time in office to be the most boring since Wade's time in office, which was busy with managing the transition of the former municipalities into the one. As much moxy as Fred showed in selling the West Harbour option, he was nothing more than a bandwagon jumper. He wrongly looked at this as an opportunity to sell himself as something he is not. While using this as his re-election platform, he ended up revealing himself as someone who will not engage in dialogue and would rather do things quietly behind our backs than be transparent, especially when he went out of his way to sabotage his dialogue with Bob Young, by continuing to push the West Harbour. The East Mountain was a compromise, which the Tiger-Cats embraced and Fred panned and did everything possible to make his option the only one. Look at how he handled his visit to the NHL to mend fences there after the Balsillie incident. He kept that secret all the way through and we would have never known about it if there was no RFI made by Emma Reilly at the Spec. Fred looked at the West Harbour as his legacy and tried to put himself in the company of Copps, Morrow, McDonald and Jackson. He failed miserably because he tried to do it all by himself.
ReplyDeleteNice analysis.
ReplyDelete"He failed miserably because he tried to do it all by himself."
Is it more accurate to say "He failed miserably because he tried to do it all by himself and he clearly wasn't made of the right stuff to actually deliver'?
'Fred doesn't play well with others...and honestly, he needs to improve his skill-set.'
LOL
Good qualities for an autocrat. Bad qualities for a leader.
ReplyDeleteNot playing well with others is a good quality for an autocrat? Sure. But let's face it; if he'd been able to pull something off, if all of this had worked out, if he'd delivered...what label could be applied to him would be moot. The truth is that right or wrong, movers-and-shakers often 'go rogue'. To complain about that is to dismiss our civilization, throw the baby out with the bathwater. We really only complain about transgressions in our leaders when things go awry. Had he ended up 'The Deal-maker' , at least to those who saw things his way (and Council had voted for WH what, six, seven times?), then he'd have been seen in an entirely different light.
ReplyDeleteWithin the parameters of propriety (and legality), those who get done what's supposed to be gotten done are 'leaders'.
And we have a dearth of them in Hamilton. (BTW, I wouldn't have included either Morrow or McDonald in that 'pantheon of greats'.)