Monday, February 14, 2011

Stadium plan - third and long

Thanks to a computer malfunction, I'm still on Friday time.

I seldom agree with Regina's Mayor Fiacco with respect to the domed stadium but I do agree with his comments reported in the SP (Feb. 11/11) that the saga has gone on for too long. His late addition of including inner city redevelopment to sweeten the project does not fly, although I do encourage him to do the housing project as part of his city's plan.

Although Mayor Fiacco states the Conservative MPs are not listening and suggests they are not working hard enough for his metropolis to receive funding for the stadium, I agree with MP Andrew Scheer when he replies "I can tell you, I'm listening very carefully. There are some people pushing this stadium that think the everyone in Saskatchewan wants it, but I hear from a lot of constituents that don't want their tax dollars to go to this."

The speculation of Ottawa changing the parameters for use of gas tax revenues to include construction of entertainment facilities was not welcomed. I was taken aback when Mandryk, in his Friday column, took issue with use of gas tax for this purpose saying this would put local governments in a no-win situation of having to choose between something voters want (visible sports/entertainment facilities) and something they need (better sewers and roads.) Isn't that what they were elected to do?

Mandryk also stated that instead of going cap-in-hand to the Harper Conservatives, the provincial and city governments need to make it impossible for Ottawa to say "No." Last I heard the federal government did a cross Canada survey and the majority of the public said no. I would guess with that survey it would be very possible for the feds to say no.

Quebec is proceeding with their stadium without federal funds being committed. Mayor Fiacco and the good folks in Regina can do likewise. And if the proposed operating revenues fall short of the projections, Regina taxpayers can hold their local government to account.

As Fiacco has not come close to making his ten yards, its time to punt the project.


  1. Take whatever Mandryk says with a grain of salt. He is writing from an extreme left opinion and with an agenda (he's a slightly more extreme Gormley, only at the other end of the spectrum). He rarely brings a compelling point forward and almost never has substantial evidence behind his arguments. Generally they follow the plot of asking inane questions that can't be answered and then telling the reader how great the NDP is and how bad the Sask Party is (again flip Gormley's arguments).

    I can't believe the stadium is even still being bandied about. If anything spruce up Mosaic Stadium at a fraction of the cost, add some more permanent stands and be done with it. Enough of spending tax payer dollars to built gaudy temples.

  2. He was aboslutely scathing of the NDP while in power. He has, righfully, question how the Sask Party operates over the past year or so after treating them with kids gloves for the first year to two years.

    Not sure how he is "extreme left", or for that matter how Gormley is "extreme right".

  3. Are you kidding me Anon 11:32? Do you regularly read Mandryk? Not sure how any Saskatchewan political follower can deny Mandryk as a left wing apologist (and similarly so about Gormley and the right).

    Mandryk's treatment of Sask Party recently has surrounded on stirring the pot for no particular reason. Take for example, his fluff piece about how all his sources speculated about the BHP block by the Feds and why it was done (Really Mandryk? That many sources and not one is willing to go on the record with their opinion?)

  4. go back and read his columns from 2005/2007, they were no holds barred on the NDP government.

    Maybe, just maybe, Mandryk holds governments feet to the fire because they deserve it.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.