(one meaning taken from context; source: Dictionary.com)
Whenever there is a decision to be made on a major city project, there will be people who will be effected in some way shape or form as the result of this decision. The decision to be made could affect a business by way of changes in profits or losses. It would concern a homeowner who is concerned with the effect on his or her property. It could affect anyone in anyway depending on its location, the length of time required and the actions to be taken. The fact is that any decision that is made will have some sort of effect on certain people and for that reason they should be consulted before a decision is made. They are called stakeholders.
The Tiger-Cats serve a purpose to our city. Without them, who would know that there is a city in Canada called "Hamilton" and this city is the biggest producer of steel in that country? In the best of times, we live vicariously in their successes and in the worst of times, we disown them. It's the ultimate love-hate relationship. It's just funny how the Tiger-Cats seem to stimulate more interest and television coverage in their 8 team league than the Hamilton Bulldogs do in their 30 team league.
During the stadium debate, there was some flawed logic that the Tiger-Cats were only tenants and should take whatever they're given, not understanding that such actions carry an effect on the Tiger-Cats, which they believed to be detrimental to their interests. That mentality was widespread with those who advocated for the West Harbour. My position has always been consistent on this one. The stadium had to be a site that both the Tiger-Cats and the city could agree on. For either to go it alone, would be disastrous for both. The stadium location had to work for Tiger-Cats as much as it had to work for the city. By that token, the Tiger-Cats had a stake in its location.
And it is with this understanding that the Tiger-Cats should not be looked at as just tenants. They are stakeholders as well, with a vested interest in the location of the stadium as it could make or break their fortunes. Yes, they are a business and they've had cash flow issues for a while now. But right now they carry the name of our city across the country and on the NFL network in the US when they play a Friday nighter. So being the team representing our city, they should have more input into where the stadium goes and if they are going to make a long term commitment to the city, they should know what they need for them to succeed. At the same time, they know their customers and what they want. And when they talk about a driveway to driveway experience, their customers are asking for a little certainty where parking is concerned. They don't want to go through the inconvenience of finding out whose front yard they could park in. So the urbanites pulled for a location that can be accessed through public transit, while the regional fans pulled for a location where they didn't have to play a guessing game on where to park.
When the city began the process of finding a location for their stadium, they should have rounded up every possible stakeholder, locked them up in a room and not let them out until they have informed us that they have come up with possible sites for the stadium, to eventually bring three choices to the table for the city to discuss and initiate a study on each candidate site. From there, the findings are reviewed and a decision is made. And most of all, it is done TRANSPARENTLY!
But that's not what the city did. The city had their minds made up and never discussed alternatives. They didn't listen to their biggest stakeholder a lot of whom had many concerns that their customers brought to them. It was the "tenant" mentality that kept things on mute. The process itself wasn't transparent at all. And when the time came to discuss alternatives, the city pushed on with their plan, dismissing the mediation process that HostCo initiated. There's a fine line between decisiveness and stubbornness, and in this case decisiveness refers to the ability to make a good decision, in consideration of all possible factors. The city, having their minds already set, chose to be stubborn and almost lost the stadium and the Tiger-Cats.
Interesting initial commentary. I think you lead a little too much with your bias, but that's your choice. : )
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to the next 'lesson'.
The argument is simple. Stakeholders should have had a say in the stadium and its location. The Tiger-Cats are stakeholders because their success is tied with the stadium. For that reason, the Tiger-Cats should have had a say in the stadium's location, as the city's partner in success. The Tiger-Cats were shut out and their concerns were summarily dismissed with prejudice. The Tiger-Cats were hoping for a wedding, but ended up being left at the altar.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I'm not sure of what common ground we're going to be able find here. Because this PanAm Games Stadium Site Selection Process was just that. It wasn't a 'Let's deal with a decaying stadium that a not-particularly-financially-vibrant sports franchise plays in' process. This was supposed to be about the PanAm Games and everything that goes along with them. Somehow things got hijacked. The 'legacy tenant' bit, the 'stakeholder' bit according to your construct is another topic entirely.
ReplyDeleteIt would have been great had there been a constructive process in play from the start...but there seemingly wasn't. As I've editorialized about numerous times, conflation occurred, and the result is- Well, the result is what you see. And it's questionable at best. (What did Metroland Managing Editor Mark Cripps say? "...it’s better than nothing." Ugh. Seriously, ugh.)
As for the Tiger Cats being 'shut out'... Honestly, I'm still staring at the screen at this comment. They behaved with their best interests at the fore, and that's fine; this is how business is done. But some of their behaviour was abominable. (Whereas some of the handling of the exigencies of the process were woefully mishandled by 'The City'.) They weren't 'shut out'. Their concerns weren't 'summarily dismissed with prejudice'. And finally, if you're going to use a wedding analogy, then I think you'd have to entertain some references to 'slutting it up', 'a hidden trail of lying and cheating', and mostly, that the Ti-Cats wanted the equivalent of an open marriage.
The whole thing is about as far from pleasing as is pretty much imaginable from my perspective. A badly-executed process that speaks volumes about how governance is unfolded in Hamilton. The capper will be if we learn nothing from it. Because if this is the tenor of the next few years- Well, stock up on Tylenol.
In certain instances, there can't always be common ground.
ReplyDeleteI think the most glaring problem that we can get out of this whole ordeal is that the process to find the right site to build the stadium didn't really have any transparency to it. For some it was merely a formality; a preordained conclusion. Anybody who knew about the 2003 bid for the 2010 Commonwealth Games knew this.
All things considered, I would have suggested the original retractable roof stadium proposal laid out by the White Star Group. And I think that these proposals muddied the water, especially because this wasn't endorsed by the city. I didn't mind the site, but there was obviously something the Tiger-Cats didn't like.
And my position has been consistent since day one. The Tiger-Cats and the city needed to work out the details on the stadium, location and all, together and in good faith. The wedding metaphor was used to highlight the fact that while Michael Fenn was trying to come up with a site that both parties could work with, Fred Eisenberger was still talking with the Katz Group about possible management arrangements to be made at the West Harbour location. So Fred was busy playing both sides, possibly hoping that he could frustrate Bob Young enough to sell the team possibly to the Katz Group. So in other words, Fred was busy selling his soul to the NHL. That's where the semblance of any goodwill was immediately shattered.
The most unfortunate aspect of the debate were the emotions that ran wild in both camps. It blinded a lot of us and we were hoping that cooler heads would prevail. It didn't happen and the rest is history. We could debate what happened and when until the cows come home, but would it help?
The way I see it, we should talk about what should have happened rather than over-analyze the process, because there's way too many holes in it and too many questions to answer about the circumstances leading up to what happened.
"In certain instances, there can't always be common ground."
ReplyDeleteRene, please take a look at this.
And from my perspective, as I've said before, moving on without properly and objectively taking a thorough look at 'what happened' would be worse than anything that's resulted.