As the hangover sets in, the lamenting has begun over at a certain website that advocated its preference for the West Harbour, an inland harbour location with just as much visibility and accessibility from the major highways as Ivor Wynne Stadium. So as our friends at RTH whine and moan about how it was their city and their future that was at stake in their choice, they can at least take solace in the fact that it will not be at the expense of "valuable farm land," and there will be no "urban sprawl" to be concerned with. They can finally put to bed the desperately ridiculous notion of building a scalable stadium at their preferred site. Sorry folks, but the idea of building a smaller, scalable stadium was one of desperation, similar to the act of recycling an idea that was originally used to sell the centerpiece of Hamilton's bid as the venue city of the 2010 Commonwealth Games.
In retrospect, there are so many questions that remain:
- How many sites were truly studied with the same intensity as the CPR, East Mountain, West Harbour and Ivor Wynne Stadium locations before they came to the original conclusion?
- Why did the Tiger-Cats at the "11th hour" decide to go public with their concerns about the intended location of the stadium?
- Why did city council feel that it was necessary to initiate a confrontation with the Tiger-Cats, rather than make a deal that both parties could live with? (Do you know how many times that idea was shot down over at RTH? Let's just say the idea slowly "faded" away many times.)
- What made the city think that Bob Young would sell the team, dumping his problem onto someone else and what made the city think that the CFL would sympathize with their position?
- What made ex-Mayor Fred think that the Tiger-Cats were bluffing?
- And how many conceptual designs were there of a possible stadium at that any of the possible locations? (White Star Group FTW!)
Update: City council has selected the Ivor Wynne Stadium II plan. The most significant part? The vote was unanimous. Now about that velodrome... (here we go again!)
Excellent post.
ReplyDeleteI editorialized on numerous occasions last year not so much in a 'pro-this location or ant-that' way, but rather stepping back as you have here. In my oft-referenced 'Reasons Behind the Reasons'. Here's one example.
One of the things that most enraged me even more than the bad strategies being followed, more than the crap way dissemination of information was handled, was the lack of inclusion from the start. To wit, the presentation of those properties being considered for the eventual site.
In one of my pieces, I stated that given a couple of hours max, I could compile a dozen candidates. Seriously; within the confines of Hamilton, there are a limited number of possibilities. Surely to God we could have at least been presented with these? (I've been told candidly that even so basic a notion of this was completely and utterly ignored by Mayor Fred et al) You know, it's astounding what you can accomplish when you have clear communication, when you have a considerate dynamic in place. (There's a powerful analogy to be drawn between good governance and a great workplace environment; both follow the same basic tenets.)
Two final points. One, that in the end, this has been a phenomenally poorly managed process. And if nothing else, this truth bodes very, very badly for Hamilton...unless as we've both pointed out, lessons are learned and changes are made in protocol.
And secondly, I believe fervently that this never would have happened if we had what I'm constantly examining these days, an 'increase in the relationship of engagement between residents and their Councillors in local governance'. Because if people were more involved, if there wasn't so deeply-embedded a culture of 'Us vs Them' regarding our elected officials that so badly taints so much of the goings-on in the city, what I've referred to as an increasing 'tally of cynicism', there's no way that those players who mucked all of this up could ever have managed to do what they've done.
Hey, Rene...
ReplyDeleteHere's a question for you, in light of the first part of the title of your post: What do you consider the Top Five Issues that City Council should next be addressing in 2011? (Putting aside anything to do with IWS)