Oh, Mark...

Here's the link for Managing Editor Mark Cripps' recent take on the PanAm Games Site Selection Process fiasco, 'Ivor Wynne decision better than nothing'.

sigh

Let's just dive in, shall we?

"I never thought it would happen, but a detente has been reached between the city and the Hamilton Tiger-Cats on a stadium location."

First off, it might be helpful to look up the meaning of 'detente', because in a very real way, this frames what 'They Call Me MR. Cripps!' sets out to say. It's generally regarded as 'the easing of strained relations, especially in a political situation'. So right off the bat, instead of looking at things from the point of view of two potential business partners hashing out a business agreement, we have a political slant to the discussion. Need I say that the endless misinformation, the fomenting of such in MSM and on sites such as Raise the Hammer (by commenters, not so much information-wise by Editor Ryan McGreal) was bad enough, but to 'politicize' the process doesn't help matters at all.

"After a year-long debate with more twists and turns than a Sandusky, Ohio, roller coaster, I’m certain most people welcome an end to the ride.

Undoubtedly. But this shouldn't be looked upon as a chance to slam a fist down onto a table and yell 'Enough already!' Even if this has been a screwed-up process, it's still very much part of governance, and in being so, deserves much more than the equivalent of being sent to its room.

"Whether you support a rebuild at Ivor Wynne as the final, last-ditch solution to the Pan Am Stadium question, the most important thing to remember is without a proposal, Hamilton risked losing $70 million in infrastructure funding from the provincial and federal governments."

So?

A deal is only a good one if it works.

If, for whatever reason, even if it's just a case of City Council 2010 or 2011 not handling things as well as they might have been handled and no 'good' deal can be worked out, then there is no 'loss'. (Yes, I understand that 'good deal' is a subjective term, wildly variable, its interpretation rife with pitfalls. Just as I understand that your approach to this mirrors what I've heard from some Councillors, and Mayor Bratina.)

"How could Hamilton, a city desperate for infrastructure upgrades and with no money to finance improvements, kiss off that kind of dough? For idealism? For selfishness? For dysfunction?"

Nicely framed again. And unfortunately, many Hamiltonians have chosen to see things this way. But this kind of rhetoric has no place in fiscally-responsible governance. Especially in a city with as many ailments as Hamilton has.

"Troubling for me during the entire debate was how some people entrenched themselves so deeply in their personal philosophy on urban renewal versus suburban sprawl that they would rather have seen the money burned in a big pile than see a stadium built anywhere but in their preferred location."

LOL

Wow.

This approach to logic reminds me of stuff coming out of the Tea Party in the US.

Yes, people were 'entrenched'. I for one am totally and completely against suburban stadiums, especially as they relate to Hamilton.

However, painting people with divergent opinions as the sort of ilk who 'would rather have seen the money burned in a big pile' doesn't add anything of grace or input to the discussion. In fact, it lowers the level of discourse markedly. This is the stuff of a 'Letter to the Editor', not a Managing Editor.

"When crucial decisions were being made during the stadium process, a minority group of inner-city advocates packed the chambers at city hall, clapping righteous patronage to councillors who supported the West Harbour. Extra kudos were extended to anyone who criticized the Tiger-Cats. Some councillors put on award-winning performances to appease the partisan crowd.

But hey, that’s democracy. Unfortunately, some people have to work during the day, and their views were overrun by a small group with time to spare and an agenda to push."

Oi...vey.

I almost don't know where to begin.

What's the flaw here, Mark? That 'some people' can exert their right to free speech while others are handcuffed by their 9-5 responsibilities?

Are you saying that 'the system' is that vulnerable to coercion?

That there are 'some Councillors' who need to be reprimanded for their 'performances'?

Are you saying that maybe there needs to be a greater relationship of engagement between residents and Councillors so that a more even flow of input is received by those charged with looking after our best interests?

"I have to admit, though, it was a gripping drama with an eclectic cast of characters providing 12 months of arousing content for media pundits.

The entire experience reaffirmed my belief Hamiltonians are passionate about their city.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem councillors are listening...or at least they only seem to listen to people who support their personal beliefs."

Wow; you sure do play the 'victim' card well.

And I'm really curious about your second sentence here. At first you're lambasting those who have taken the time to voice their opinions in whatever way they're able...and yet you're applauding people for showing they're 'passionate about their city'.

Your final sentence makes me believe that you're intent to inject 'whine' into your own opportunities for free speech. And that's a shame.

"Let’s take Confederation Park as an example. I spoke to Ward 10 Councillor Maria Pearson on a number of occasions regarding the stadium debate.

She would defend her decision not to support Confederation Park as a location with comments like, “That’s not what my constituents are telling me.” Last week, a poll commissioned by councillors Terry Whitehead and Scott Duvall seemed to contradict the suggested opposition to a stadium at Confederation Park."

My first question here would be 'Who ended up being targeted by this poll?

Exactly what is the demographic?

You should be asking the same questions, because I believe there's as much of a 'disparity' here as there is with your bitching about the one present in some people being able to voice their opinions (and thereby influence proceedings) while others 'have to work during the day'.

So tell me; do you honestly believe that the people being polled in this instance are a good representation of the people-at-large?

"Here’s one of the poll questions: In regards to the possible Confederation Park location, would you like council to consider building the stadium in Confederation Park or would you prefer to see the space remain as park land? In the eastern suburbs, which one can assume refers to Stoney Creek, more than 50 per cent of those surveyed supported a stadium at Confederation Park, as opposed to 41 per cent who wanted the site to remain as a park.

So clearly, if we are to believe the results of this poll, the majority of Pearson’s constituents actually wanted to see a stadium built at Confederation Park.

Across the city, Confederation Park squeaked out as the preferred location of residents polled."

Polling is always dangerous. Here's what someone far wiser than either of us has had to say on the subject:

"After a half century it's beginning to dawn on us that there is no such thing as public opinion. Since people don't normally have fixed opinions or well-established viewpoints on issues, their answers depend on the questions. Since reason — and, by extension, democratic politics — cannot be measured, polls are at bottom useless. They furnish us with statistics and give an air of scientific credibility to the fundamentally unscientific business of politics, but they tell us nothing about the quality of the public's views."

Scott London, 'Electronic Town Halls Can't Beat The Real Thing', 1993

We elect/hire our Councillors to make the best decisions possible. I am against even the hint of the notion of people somehow being able to 'vote' on every major decision before Council. (Even if this were what our system was predicated on, there'd be a provision for easily-taken plebiscites, doncha think...?) So the idea of a Maria Pearson being slagged off for purportedly 'not listening to her constituents' (you're not a coffee mate of a former Ward 10 candidate, are you Mark?) is sad, funny and disappointing all at the same time.

"As for the Ivor Wynne solution, it wouldn’t have been my first or second choice.

A modern stadium in a high profile, high traffic location was always the best solution in my mind. Confederation Park or the rail yards at Aberdeen and Longwood would have given the city a showpiece of progress, not only for local residents, but those driving on routes through our area."

Good Lord, I can't imagine a more diametrically opposed stance to mine than yours. If I were to consider yours 'well thought out'. Which I don't. To quote Diane Lane, 'This is disturbing on so many levels.'

"Having a stadium buried in the West Harbour, out of sight and mostly out of mind, made little sense in terms of giving the city a showpiece."

I stand corrected; this stance is worse.

"The Ivor Wynne site isn’t much better in terms of using the stadium as a trophy of progress, but as opposed to making a wrong decision, or losing the money altogether, it’s better than nothing."

"It's better than nothing."

Wowza.

You know, I've had lots of conversations with Mahesh Butani, former Mayoral candidate, about the legacy 'malaise' that afflicts Hamilton. To me, at its core, it has to do with what I see as a protracted identity crisis prompted by its historical profile being decimated, combined with rampant peripheral development, a curiously abusive relationship with downtown management, and a dearth of true leadership.

Tied in with this, what you're saying here in this final comment speaks volumes.