Quote:
Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues
My personal guess (if anyone knows better, please enlighten me) is that areas like the north end industrial areas are unattractive because remediation tends to be a cost borne by property owners, and greenfields are attractive because servicing new development lands tends to be a cost borne by us, the taxpayers. I can't see a lot of other reason for the preference, as existing industrial areas are close to where labour is already located, and close to well-developed transportation routes.
|
I think that's a big part of the issue, and companies that might locate on land formerly used for heavy industry will look for government subsidies to help offset that cost.
Financing it may be more difficult too. Remediation introduces an element of risk that investment firms and banks likely shy away from.
There's also the issue of the time it will take to remediate the land. Once the business decision has been made to go ahead with the capital investment, and the financing is in place, the timing of the project becomes a factor.
I think brownfield redevelopment can and will happen in Hamilton, but it's going to take a lot of time and a lot of effort, and probably a lot of money too. So the city needs to take a balanced approach and offer greenfield alternatives as well, or at least plan for them now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pEte fiSt iN Ur fAce
This concept is entirely dependent on cheap oil. If oil were trading at $10/ barrel like it was in 1990, then I might go along with the idea...might. However, oil price projections over the next decade or two are dire, to say the least, ranging from $150/ barrel to as much as $500. Either way, a 1970s style economy won't function. This is the kind of idea that desperate municipalities grasp onto because they've seen it work...IN THE PAST. We need to be a little more creative going forward.
My prediction:
The city throws everything it has at this project and it falls flat on its face. They then subdivide it for, yes, residential. Most of it, though, will be left undeveloped, not to mention rendered useless for agricultural purposes.
|
I tend to share HillStreetBlues' perspective on energy too. And not just about oil technologies, but alternatives. The demand for energy is just too great, and I think many underestimate the power of innovation.
I do agree the risk of residential development pressure is big. We've seen the city bend over on development planning far too often, and I don't trust the OMB to remain consistent on the issue of residential land-use in this case.
But why would the undeveloped land be "rendered useless for agricultural purposes"?