The Horror. The Horror.

This entry was posted on 1/7/2007 9:31 PM and is filed under Nay-Sayers,media,Glasgow.

Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this entry.

Comments

• 1/11/2007 4:37 PM Carl Burns wrote:
  I think the best reason to not support the games is that the Hamm government broke its own rules according the province's Auditor General, Halifax Herald 11 Jan 07 . I thought that Hamm was above that kind of chicanery but unfortunately not.
  I notice the character assassination continues unabated by the non-identified supporters of the games. If you people are so sure that the games will not bankrupt the city why don't you put your name where your mouth is. Unfortunately that won't happen because many of the supporters are either as dishonest as the bid committee with their continued secrecy (and don't give that guff about the rivals peeking at their financial numbers) or they're are willfully delusional and won't be sticking around for the long haul when the massive debt will have to be repaid.
  Here's my estimate for what the games will cost just the HRM taxpayers. 550 million. Add the costs of both amalgamation and the Harbour Solutions Project which are pegged at 560 million being split pretty much 50/50 at $280 million each. Should Halifax taxpayers be so unlucky as to get these games, the city will definitely go bankrupt as more of the population moves away due to the loss of city services and the reduction of the standard of living because we have to pay off a billion dollars of debt plus the interest.
  Councillors recently were of the opinion that if the city were to take over the debt of various sports facilities such as Sackville, Dartmouth Sportsplex, etc. it would "take a huge bite out of the budget" according to councillor Steve Streatch. That debt was pegged at $15 million which is a paltry amount compared to the "Alice in Wonderland" estimate of $785 million.
  
  All that Bruce Devenne and others in the "naysayer" camp want is an honest accounting and honesty from the bid committee, but that hasn't happened to date and likely won't happen ever as the real final bid comes with the revision in Sept 07. The numbers we get in May 07 will not be the actual numbers. All we can hope is that the members of the Commonwealth Games committee see that awarding such a small population an event that has left huge debts for cities much larger, is folly and will instead award the games to another bid city.
  Reply to this
• 1/12/2007 9:28 PM Michael Stewart wrote:
  "Halifax has a choice: remain wrapped in quaintness, or become a dynamic city of the 21st century."
  
  Shouldn't we finish paying for the 20th Century first?
  Reply to this
  1. 1/12/2007 10:05 PM Fan of the Games wrote:
     Right!
     
     Until you pay off your house, don't mow the lawn, replace the roof, or update the bathroom.
     
     
     
     Reply to this
     1. 2/23/2007 10:48 AM Carl Burns wrote:
        More stupidity from the supporters of this dishonest debacle. Of course we want solid numbers but it seems that only the CG supporters like the blog master are willing to jeopardize the region's future for the sake of getting a few freebies when the party comes to town. Then when the bill comes in and has to be paid, all of these supporters will leave, leaving behind a mountain of debt. Your analogy about maintaining a house while paying it off has nothing to do with this issue and it's just one more stupid response to legitimate questions. It's no wonder that supporters like Mr. Mills' organization continue to run tiny sample surveys. It's kind of like having only the population of Prince Edward Island making the decisions for all of Canada. That wouldn't make much sense and the position held by the supporters is the very same thing. If Don Mills and his brother are so enthused about getting the games maybe they're willing to each put up a million dollars of their own money to take Halifax out of being a "quaint little town".
        Reply to this
• 1/16/2007 10:52 AM Carl Burns wrote:
  I am humbled by the scathing critique to my entry. I'm positive there were brains on fire attempting to generate the rebuttal commentary to my perspective. But this is the extent of insight you get with Games Supporters. There's nothing of substance just a few words strung together as if that's all that's needed to offer an opinion. It's little wonder these people support the games. They simply don't understand the connection between having something and having to pay for something. Michael Stewart believes that platitudes are enough to ward off serious examination of this folly. And really what kind of foolishness is the second comment. How does mowing or not mowing your lawn have anything to do with wanting to plunge the region into financial dire straits because of ill conceived and presented idea where secrecy is the primary concern and not actually how to pay for such a venture.
  Reply to this

Leave a comment