Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
A cheap turkey is just a cheap turkey
Colin May | November 10, 2019 | Reply
Doug Barron | November 9, 2019 | Reply
The proposal also assumes HRM contributing to the half-million per year expected maintenance costs.
It also calls itself “phase I” and notes that HRM is expected to partner on phase II which looks like another 150 million or so.
Matt Spurway | November 9, 2019 | Reply
In full agreement Bill and the best explanation yet written. Good work, Thank you
Tony Marissink | November 9, 2019 | Reply
Completely agree. Also worth noting that contingency costs for $$ estimate are only 6% on an “order of magnitude” cost. That is way way too low. Contingency ought to be 20% on that very rough estimate so the costs will are at least 10-15% , if not more, higher than stated in proposal
Blair T. | November 9, 2019 | Reply
Agree entirely – would be a complete waste of time, money, you name it. Is the only reason this is still being considered the fact that it would be taxpayers who will pay? And, if so, what will we be unable to afford due to scarce resources spent on this?
Steve Chipman | November 8, 2019 | Reply
not one cent of taxpayers money
every councillor who votes for this should be vigorously opposed in the next civic election.
we have deteriorating harbour bridges,decrepit hospital facilities and inadequate roadways ( ie Burnside access,Bedford hiway)
Nero fiddled while Rome burned,but council best remember we have fire departments today and they (councillors) can all be fired
bill | November 8, 2019 | Reply
Creative Commons 2010 – Present