(Jul 16, 2010) Re: 'Young saves city from major failure; West harbour functions well 'as it is,' core needs families, not a stadium' (Opinion, July 14)
I enjoyed Herman Turkstra's article, perhaps because we served together on Hamilton's city council. In those days, we asked a lot of questions. Let's count the 1,000 questions about the stadium:
* Do we need a stadium to rejuvenate the North End?
* Does the beautiful harbour better serve as a stadium than needed housing overlooking the beautiful harbour?
* Was a stadium on the waterfront ever in the official plans?
* Does a stadium on the waterfront provide more than a panoramic view?
* Would there be easy access to the west harbour location?
* Would traffic be better than that at Ivor Wynne Stadium?
* Would there be sufficient parking?
* Has there been economic rejuvenation surrounding Ivor Wynne?
* Should money made from patrons parking on bewildered neighbours' lawns be considered economic spinoff?
* Should we doubt Bob Young's word that a North End stadium is financially unsustainable?
* Is there any reason to not appreciate the money and effort spent by the Tiger-Cats owner?
* Should we agree with Marvin Ryder when he mitigates the historical, cultural, economic and social contributions of the Tiger-Cats?
* Should we agree with Councillor Chad Collins, who arbitrarily removed Confederation Park as a possible site?
* Shouldn't all agreements be a win-win situation if they are to succeed?
Along with many others, I answer "No" to all of these questions, and say "Yes" to a brighter future for Hamilton.