Highly recommended reading! Bit hard to find, it is available from Amazon.ca
http://youtu.be/JenP-QEraAY
http://youtu.be/HYzCHLdVoxA
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Modern Day Urban Planning
In the most recent CJ editorial (near the end of Sept.), once again voicing endless support for this project, stating, economic benefits “More jobs will spring from the TBECC itself and from adjacent downtown business”, & “Typical arguments were heard again”. The argument of economic benefit has been debunked several times by true urban planning experts, however I see it is fit for repeating? The consultants don’t even claim their “Projections” to be accurate enough to guarantee, yet they are preached as gospel? I’d like to present a few quotes from the book “Convention Center Follies by Heywood T Sanders, Professor of Public Administration at the University of Texas. Mr Sanders is regarded as “one of the nation’s foremost urban development experts”, I think he has loads of credibility!
Here are a few quotes that are quite interesting to say the least!
Preface, Page xii
“The imperative to boost downtown development and create a sense of “momentum” did not evaporate for big-city business leaders during the 60’s and 70’s. Rather, it led them to focus on new fiscal schemes that could build grand convention centers, stadiums and arenas independent of city fiscal resources or the preference of city voters.”
Chapter 1, Page 17, paragraph 5
“The Phoenix case neatly exemplifies the dynamics and results of contemporary convention center development. A proposal for a new center or a major expansion appears to bubble up from a longstanding policy stream, often focused on downtown development and revitalization efforts. The idea comes buttressed with a seemingly compelling logic: the convention center is now old, competing cities have expanded and added more space, and expansion will bring enormous benefits in terms of spending, tax revenues, and job creation. A consultant study (or series of studies) documents the “need” for a larger convention facility, describes the expansions and additions of competing cities, and presents a highly precise forecast of expected performance and economic benefits. Local business leaders endorse the plan, and it receives an enthusiastic reception on the editorial page of the local newspaper. And with little or no opposition, the plan receives the formal approval of the local mayor and city council.”
Chapter 1, Page 35, Paragraph 2
“Without any direct public vote, the “deals” to finance the center were shaped by state-level politics. There, the deal-making was effectively distributive and geographic, with enough benefits for enough benefits for enough parts of the Commonwealth and local legislators to succeed. The fundamental “deal” for Philadelphia’s center and its subsequent expansion were thus constructed in a remarkably narrow and constrained field, with serious public discourse and debate effectively limited and avoided, built on the unquestioned assumptions and presumptions of consultants who presented no record of their earlier forecasts’ accuracy and no evidence of expert knowledge beyond the contention that they had done many such studies before.”
I find the line, “it receives an enthusiastic reception on the editorial page of the local newspaper. “ is certainly the case based on local editorials.
Here is the CJ's Editorial
LU sports a good fit at event centre
"Thunder Bay’s proposed event centre took on new life this week as city council agreed to make Lakehead University its primary tenant. LU’s popular Thunderwolves men’s hockey team provides thrilling — and clean — action on the ice at the aging Fort William Gardens. A modern, new rink surely will draw even more fans to a brand of hockey that is fast and exciting. Typical arguments were heard again at council, and in letters in today’s Chronicle-Journal. The event centre will cost too much to operate. It will not draw as many patrons as predicted. We need to spend the money on other things. Yes, the facility will result in an annual cost to taxpayers. So does every other public facility. That is the nature of such things. They are built by the public for the public good and to raise the standard of living in the community. Must we never pay to enjoy ourselves and instead plow our taxes only into core services like road building — to which the city has committed millions in extra money. Most major communities have built for themselves some kind of spectator facility in which to relax and enjoy sports and entertainment. There are a quarter of a million people in Northwestern Ontario alone. This one will have the added benefit of a convention centre to take advantage of myriad conferences and conventions that now seek enjoyable and convenient locations to bring hundreds or thousands of people to spend time and money. Hotels are going up all over Thunder Bay because it is hard to get a decent room most nights. Thunder Bay is already a destination. With its award winning tourism promotion to launch a new campaign for a fine event and convention centre, the returns will offset some of the costs. Local construction jobs will continue the employment surge created by the adjacent waterfront development still under way. More jobs will spring from the TBECC itself and from adjacent downtown business already growing by leaps and bounds in the entertainment district. This is a good thing, not something to be feared and jeered. With Ottawa having strangely refused to fund its share if a professional sports franchise was involved (strange because it’s done so elsewhere in Canada) LU is the next logical main tenant. Already a partner in the project, the university can confidently build its hockey franchise anew. What, though, about a women’s hockey team? Surely in Canada where women rule the hockey world, it is time to build a women’s Thunderwolves team. Critics argue the men’s team will play just 20 games on the event centre ice. If we create a women’s team we’ll double the games and grow the local hockey fan base considerably. LU’s other sports, particularly its basketball program, regularly fill the university Fieldhouse. Key games could well be moved to the event centre which would easily compete to host provincial and national university championships in all sports. We’ve spent $4 million studying the event centre concept to confirm it is viable. Every reliable measure of citizen opinion has been in favour of the project. With LU on board, and costs somewhat reduced by cutting out 500 seats, TBECC remains a desirable addition to our community."
Here are a few quotes that are quite interesting to say the least!
Preface, Page xii
“The imperative to boost downtown development and create a sense of “momentum” did not evaporate for big-city business leaders during the 60’s and 70’s. Rather, it led them to focus on new fiscal schemes that could build grand convention centers, stadiums and arenas independent of city fiscal resources or the preference of city voters.”
Chapter 1, Page 17, paragraph 5
“The Phoenix case neatly exemplifies the dynamics and results of contemporary convention center development. A proposal for a new center or a major expansion appears to bubble up from a longstanding policy stream, often focused on downtown development and revitalization efforts. The idea comes buttressed with a seemingly compelling logic: the convention center is now old, competing cities have expanded and added more space, and expansion will bring enormous benefits in terms of spending, tax revenues, and job creation. A consultant study (or series of studies) documents the “need” for a larger convention facility, describes the expansions and additions of competing cities, and presents a highly precise forecast of expected performance and economic benefits. Local business leaders endorse the plan, and it receives an enthusiastic reception on the editorial page of the local newspaper. And with little or no opposition, the plan receives the formal approval of the local mayor and city council.”
Chapter 1, Page 35, Paragraph 2
“Without any direct public vote, the “deals” to finance the center were shaped by state-level politics. There, the deal-making was effectively distributive and geographic, with enough benefits for enough benefits for enough parts of the Commonwealth and local legislators to succeed. The fundamental “deal” for Philadelphia’s center and its subsequent expansion were thus constructed in a remarkably narrow and constrained field, with serious public discourse and debate effectively limited and avoided, built on the unquestioned assumptions and presumptions of consultants who presented no record of their earlier forecasts’ accuracy and no evidence of expert knowledge beyond the contention that they had done many such studies before.”
I find the line, “it receives an enthusiastic reception on the editorial page of the local newspaper. “ is certainly the case based on local editorials.
Here is the CJ's Editorial
LU sports a good fit at event centre
"Thunder Bay’s proposed event centre took on new life this week as city council agreed to make Lakehead University its primary tenant. LU’s popular Thunderwolves men’s hockey team provides thrilling — and clean — action on the ice at the aging Fort William Gardens. A modern, new rink surely will draw even more fans to a brand of hockey that is fast and exciting. Typical arguments were heard again at council, and in letters in today’s Chronicle-Journal. The event centre will cost too much to operate. It will not draw as many patrons as predicted. We need to spend the money on other things. Yes, the facility will result in an annual cost to taxpayers. So does every other public facility. That is the nature of such things. They are built by the public for the public good and to raise the standard of living in the community. Must we never pay to enjoy ourselves and instead plow our taxes only into core services like road building — to which the city has committed millions in extra money. Most major communities have built for themselves some kind of spectator facility in which to relax and enjoy sports and entertainment. There are a quarter of a million people in Northwestern Ontario alone. This one will have the added benefit of a convention centre to take advantage of myriad conferences and conventions that now seek enjoyable and convenient locations to bring hundreds or thousands of people to spend time and money. Hotels are going up all over Thunder Bay because it is hard to get a decent room most nights. Thunder Bay is already a destination. With its award winning tourism promotion to launch a new campaign for a fine event and convention centre, the returns will offset some of the costs. Local construction jobs will continue the employment surge created by the adjacent waterfront development still under way. More jobs will spring from the TBECC itself and from adjacent downtown business already growing by leaps and bounds in the entertainment district. This is a good thing, not something to be feared and jeered. With Ottawa having strangely refused to fund its share if a professional sports franchise was involved (strange because it’s done so elsewhere in Canada) LU is the next logical main tenant. Already a partner in the project, the university can confidently build its hockey franchise anew. What, though, about a women’s hockey team? Surely in Canada where women rule the hockey world, it is time to build a women’s Thunderwolves team. Critics argue the men’s team will play just 20 games on the event centre ice. If we create a women’s team we’ll double the games and grow the local hockey fan base considerably. LU’s other sports, particularly its basketball program, regularly fill the university Fieldhouse. Key games could well be moved to the event centre which would easily compete to host provincial and national university championships in all sports. We’ve spent $4 million studying the event centre concept to confirm it is viable. Every reliable measure of citizen opinion has been in favour of the project. With LU on board, and costs somewhat reduced by cutting out 500 seats, TBECC remains a desirable addition to our community."
Sunday, October 11, 2015
A History of Rec Facility Plebiscites, Why Not Now????
On March 6 1951 the Fort William
Gardens was officially opened, having been built at a cost of $658,900 by the
Claydon Company of Fort William, the lowest tender received. Of this sum,
$107,000 had been raised by a public fund raising campaign by the Junior
Chamber of Commerce. In a speech ten years later, former Fort William Mayor
Hubert Badanai (Fort William mayor when FWG opened, then MP), reflected that,
“The Fort William Gardens is a chapter of civic endeavour, the success of which
was due not to any individual, but the co-operative efforts of many whose sole
purpose was to provide recreational facilities second to none for the people,
coupled with an unshakeable belief in the growth and development of our city”.
To date the city taxpayers have been denied a real
voice on the proposed “Event Center”, which is being steadfastly pushed by the
Mayor and the supporting councillors. Why? Mayor Hobbs and City Manager Tim
Commisso earlier stated, “it was pre-mature” for a plebiscite to be included in
the recent civic election, well then, when will that time be proper? After
it gets built?
There is a record of plebiscite's being
held for these facilities locally. In 1919 a plebiscite was held for the Prince
of Wales rink, for the building of a replacement rink to replace the previous public
rink, which burnt down in April 1912. On Dec 6 1944, a proposal for a new community
Center (which would become FWG) was shot down by the voters in a plebiscite. As
the pursuit of a new building continued, to replace the Price of Wales, which
was turned over to the Canadian military in 1943 for use as an armoury for the
war effort, another plebiscite was held in 1947 for the location, selecting the
present location. During the process to replace the Port Arthur Arena in the
early sixties, there were two plebiscites held. So it must be asked why this gang of eight
councillors, who have unwaveringly voted every step to proceed, are steadfastly
pushing this without any confirmed public support for it? Why have they refused
a vote to the public? It certainly raises several alarming questions doesn't
it! There are several serious concerns presented by citizens on the proposal,
whom Hobbs shamelessly disregards as “Naysayers”, and councillor Ruberto echoes!
We see local business groups, Waterfront BIA, Ambassadors Northwest strongly
supporting it, with Ambassadors Northwest (in a letter to council) stating they
were against plebiscite, why? Is it out of self interest? Only they know and one
certainly wonders!
Compare this, to what undoubtedly has
to be the best recreation facility development in this city, Chapples Park. The
idea was conceived by FW councillor Clement Chapple, founder of Chapples, some
twenty years before FW Stadium & Delany arena opened. The land was donated
by Chapple, with the golf course opening in 1949. In 1959 FW Stadium followed, opening
for the football season, with the grand opening of it and the baseball stadium
(@ the SW corner of the football field)held in 1960. Mr. Chapple had put
forward a sum of $25,000 toward this project, on top of the land he had
previously donated. Mr. Chapple unfortunately did not live to see the project
come to fruition. When you hear Chapples Park, think of a councillor from the
business community, whom genuinely cared for, and gave generously for the
benefit of his community. This is of course appears to be quite contrary to
what we see in this project!!!
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Why I am against the present proposal on Water Street
Proceeding
with this will add approx. $70 million to the present city debt of approx. $170
million, bringing it to approx. $240 million! Adding this much will likely cause
our credit score to change, and result in higher rates. To service the present
debt,
we spend approx. $6.3 million annually. Adding the $70 million will cost around
another $3 million. Add the operating costs of $1.19-1.4 if the lofty
projections are reached, we will need another $4.5-5 million to balance the
budget! We saw how tight things got this year,what will TB look like with this
added? City staff should start saving,they'll be coming for your pay
checks!
During the recent election, Shane Judge
brought up that the province forecasted Thunder Bay to lose some 15,000 in
population by 2030. He also brought up,there would likely be another school
closure. Hammarskjold is at some 750 students with a capacity of 1400, and I've
been told there was apparently discussions of merging it with Superior? LU is
expected to be down 200 students in residence next year. At its peak capacity
Fort William Gardens could legally accommodate slightly over 5000 spectators.
Its largest crowd was just over 6000 for a Thunder Bay Twins Allan Cup
Championship Game #7 in 1985. During its peak years, Thunder Bay's average age
was much younger than it is presently, so it was possible to pull good numbers.
The present capacity of FWG is around 3800, with LU crowds this season being
around 2200, having dropped from better than 2500. With an aging and shrinking
population, does this bode well for building a facility with a capacity 1900
seats larger? I think not!
I believe there are certain "Economic
threats" facing Thunder Bay that should also factor into this argument, some
unique to TB some not. As previously mentioned, our shrinking population, how
will this affect our tax base, or our ability to afford to pay for the services
& facilities we now have? With an Ontario government that has spent the last
decade on a spending spree, the province has been warned to get the spending
under control but to date have done little. The time will come when it must be
dealt with,how will that affect us? Government practice based on previous
behaviours of higher levels, could likely be, down loading to the municipalities
& job cuts. The top ten employers in TB are government, I think that makes
us very vulnerable to those cuts. For more then a century TB Tel has been a
great asset for our city and remains such. Is the annual $17 million dividend
sustainable long term? In business, record profit can be followed by a record
loss. Should this dividend shrink or worse, what would be the result?
Hobbs says we need to replace FWG at some
point. That would be true, the proposed facility does not! FWG will be rquired
to exist in one shape or another to satisfy the long term lease with FW Curling
Club as the heating system is apparently located in FWG. To alter the facility
to change this, or to get out of the lease by building a replacemnt facility
would no doubt be expensive. I've supported Innova Park, or a"central" location
such as LU or the CLE. A location that included facilities accomodating FWCC and
possibly PA Curling Club and the available floor space for shows that it would
provide would likely work far better then the present proposal and its
limitations.
Monday, March 23, 2015
Where will the Ice Caps be, Winnipeg or Thunder Bay?
It was recently announced that the Winnipeg Jets AHL team would be
relocating to Winnipeg and, according to GM Kevin Cheveldayoff, he expects it
too be a long term relocation. In Thunder Bay, a letter of intent (expiring
March 31/2015) was signed, with the AHL team locating here should a proposed new
facility be built. Thunder Bay Mayor claims he has been told that should the
facility be built, that the AHL team will still be coming here? Makes you wonder
if one city is being played for a sucker here? Winnipeg or Thunder Bay?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/ahl-team-still-destined-for-thunder-bay-mayor-says-1.2993982
In March 23 2015 Winnipeg Sun
What about T-Bay?
I have been watching with interest your American Hockey League farm team and their imminent return to Winnipeg. The city of Thunder Bay is proposing to build a new Event Centre. The Mayor of our city states that if we build this new facility your team is moving to Thunder Bay. True North has signed a non-binding letter of intent to move here for the 2017 season if this Event Centre is built. This letter of intent expires on March 31, and as funding is not in place the city will be asking all parties including True North to sign an extension until funding is secured. I am a little confused as GM Ken Cheveldayoff of the Jets has stated that they are going to dig in and make Winnipeg a home that lasts a long time for their AHL team. I am interested to see if True North signs this extension and if Thunder Bay was to move ahead with a new Event Centre will True North sign a binding contract to move their team to Thunder Bay.
Ray Smith, former Director and PR for the Thunder Bay Twins Senior A hockey team.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/03/20/letters-march-23-2015
Press Conference - Concerned Citizens of Thunder Bay March 23 2015
Good Morning,
1. Second phase
of Golf Links Road being debentured for approx. 8 million dollars. This could
have come out of the TB Renew fund instead of directing all of the 23 million in
this fund towards the proposed Event Centre.
2. The average homeowner is looking at an
extra $114 dollars on their water bill to cover infrastructure upgrades. A
report prepared for city council say Thunder Bay must spend about $170 million
over 2 decades on capital projects plus another $10 million in the next 5 years
for new storm sewers.
The report says increasing the surcharge would
allow the city to stop using debt for large sewer projects.
A Thunder Bay sewer rate surcharge may spike to
help replace pipes.
It is beyond me how we can rob the gas tax fund
over the next 10 years of about $21 million dollars to help pay for a proposed
Event Centre when our infrastructure is crumbling and taxpayers have been
stretched to the limit.
3. Mr. Commisso states in his funding report that
the city should receive $9.5 million for naming rights and private sector
funding. The average arena in the OHA is about $1.5 for naming rights that is
paid over a 10 year period.
Do you recall that the skateboard park at the
Marina was going to raise $100,000 to help offset the cost of the $1 million
dollar skateboard park? They were going to sell bricks with the sponsors name
being recognized. You can go see just how many donators they got. There is a
pathetic little wall with a few names. They sure and hell didn't raise
anywhere close to $100,000 dollars.
4. Interesting to see the taxpayers are going to be
on the hook to pay for the relocation of the Hydro Sub Station should the
proposed Event Centre move ahead. Thunder Bay Hydro plans to ask the Ont.
Energy board to approve a fee increase from city taxpayers to cover this
expense.
Anyway the list goes on and on as city hall
continues to increase the city debt, taxes, waterbills and as they cut many of
the services they shouldn't be.
Ray
Why Aren't These Questions Being Answered?
The big claim of the “Event Center” champions, including
the CJ, is that it will "Revitalize" the former PA downtown. Which of the
previous “Revitalization projects” have succeeded, Ont Govt Bldg, Casino,
Victoriaville, Courthouse? FW Gardens has brought several thousands, to the
former FW downtown for various events and look at the sorry state it is! What
will the next failing "Revitalization" project be when on-line shopping further
cripples retail and the need of retail space shrinks further? This project does
not replace FW Gardens, it will still need to exist in some form due to the long
term FW Curling Club lease. A central location which included curling facilities
could also accommodate the PA Curling Club in the plan and, would keep the place
active during winter months. Water St is a location that has driven the cost off
the radar, with its $114 plus price tag simply outrageous! There was lots of
support for a new facility, though as the price escalated, support clearly
dropped off! At $80 million, Innova Park had 2000 parking spots, is closer to
the cities better hotels, highways, airport and LU with supporting convention
facilities etc. Why has there been an unrelenting push for this facility at the
Water St location from the beginning? Why has the public been shut out of making
any decisions on it? Why was the consultant never asked the verifiable track
record on their last ten project forecasts? St Catherines ON can build a
facility for $50 million, but we need a $114 million facility here, after its
been scaled back, and with other costs hidden by being shifted to other
departments? Why has there never been any research done to see how much of the
community has the disposable income to support this facility? Why does Hobbs say
if we want sewer, water & roads improved we better be ready to pay more, yet
the city’s decision makers have no problem forcing this through? The sewer,
water and roads are the justifiable priority and would quite likely qualify
under the Build Canada Fund, which this facility does not! Why aren’t these
questions being answered if there is nothing to hide? What is being hidden from
the people who’ll pay for this “Mistake by the
lake”?
http://www.chroniclejournal.com/editorial/letters/2015-03-23/event-centre-questions-remain
http://www.chroniclejournal.com/editorial/letters/2015-03-23/event-centre-questions-remain
Saturday, March 7, 2015
Do Your REAL RESEARCH Thunder Bay
Sports facilities are not the "Economic Leaders" supporters of them like to claim! There are several links in this piece that tells the Real Truth, not Consultant's truth!
"Chicago's professional sports industry—which includes five teams—accounted for less than one-tenth of 1 percent of Chicago's 1995 personal income. Baade further commented that even when compared with the revenue of other industries, professional sports teams contribute small amounts to the economy. He noted, for example, that "the sales revenue of Fruit of the Loom exceed[ed] that for all of Major League Baseball (MLB), while the sales revenue of Sears [was] about thirty times larger than that of all MLB revenues."
"Estimates of income that will be generated and, hence, spent in the region are often overstated. Most of the "big" money in sports goes to the owners and players, who may or may not spend the money in the hometown since many live in other cities"
"Very little evidence exists to suggest that sporting events are better at attracting tourism dollars to a city than other activities. More often than not, tourists who attend a baseball or hockey game, for example, are in town on business or are visiting family and would have spent the money on another activity if the sports outlet were not available"
These are but a few tidbits of information from this article & links. While it is primarily about Pro Sporting facilities, if scaled back it represents a clear picture of Thunder Bay's folly! Remember, the primary tenant will be an AHL Professional hockey team!
http://www.unitedformissouri.org/newsroom/myths-half-truths-stadium-proposal
"Chicago's professional sports industry—which includes five teams—accounted for less than one-tenth of 1 percent of Chicago's 1995 personal income. Baade further commented that even when compared with the revenue of other industries, professional sports teams contribute small amounts to the economy. He noted, for example, that "the sales revenue of Fruit of the Loom exceed[ed] that for all of Major League Baseball (MLB), while the sales revenue of Sears [was] about thirty times larger than that of all MLB revenues."
"Estimates of income that will be generated and, hence, spent in the region are often overstated. Most of the "big" money in sports goes to the owners and players, who may or may not spend the money in the hometown since many live in other cities"
"Very little evidence exists to suggest that sporting events are better at attracting tourism dollars to a city than other activities. More often than not, tourists who attend a baseball or hockey game, for example, are in town on business or are visiting family and would have spent the money on another activity if the sports outlet were not available"
These are but a few tidbits of information from this article & links. While it is primarily about Pro Sporting facilities, if scaled back it represents a clear picture of Thunder Bay's folly! Remember, the primary tenant will be an AHL Professional hockey team!
http://www.unitedformissouri.org/newsroom/myths-half-truths-stadium-proposal
Monday, March 10, 2014
Letter for the March 17/2014 Council Meeting Agenda
In the later part of
2009 when the suggestion of building a new facility to replace the FW Gardens
was proposed, I was supportive of the project. On Jan 16/2010 I wrote a letter
to the CJ suggesting Innova Park to be a great location for such a facility, and
that location could likely attract a major hotel chain to partner in it, with
“convention facilities”. The original price suggested was in the $50-60 million
range for a 5500 seat facility. I thought this to be a fair price range, when
St Catherine’s ON was building a 5500 seat facility for $50 million. Since that
original figure, this project has gone completely off the rails, now ringing
the register at $106 million plus before the inevitable cost over runs that
always occur during building. As this project has rolled on, serious concerns
of the public have been ignored, and quite clearly, reality and common sense
has vanished completely! As a tax paying citizen of Thunder Bay, I cannot
support this project in its present form at any location and urge this “runaway
train” project to stop before it hits the wash out its quite clearly heading
for! Should this project continue, the end result will not be pretty, creating
long term financial woes for our city! I have several concerns about this
project, which concern me immensely!
1/
The cost of this proposed facility has escalated drastically to a prohibitive
point! While initially $50-60 million as previously stated, it has pretty much
doubled in price to $106 million before the cost over runs during construction
and surprise “revisions”. The Water
Street location, which the people largely reject, yet city powers seem to
choose to deny and drive down the people’s throat, is the primary reason for
this prohibitive price! When the price jumped from $80 million, it was because
additional parking facilities would need to be constructed at Water Street. In
the reports, I saw no significant changes to the Innova Park site which already
included parking lot costs, yet it jumped up that extra $20 million as well, how?
I can only believe it is because city powers already decided on the location,
and the public consultations were nothing but a complete sham! At the meetings
I was able to attend, as well as in local media the sales pitch for Water
Street was quite obvious. One councillor I met at one meeting was stressing to
me “It’s gotta go to the waterfront”. Public opinion & preference be
damned, it’s going to Water Street! The Consultants report charged up things to
Innova Park I believe to be “bogus” in an effort to inflate the Innova Park
cost and make Water St more attractive regardless of the real cost there!
Claims such as four-laning the roads inside Innova Park and the addition of two
entrances are both mis-allocated and unnecessary. Interestingly the two additional
entrances have since be added on Golf Links Rd and the Harbor Expressway after
Council’s coronation of Water St. Why would we have needed to four lane Innova
Park roads when patrons would be traveling in two lanes of traffic in the
former downtown? I believe the public knows the answer to this, as does council
and city administration. Councillor Boshcoff
states that the 2010 municipal election was a de-facto vote on building
this facility. Since that time, both the cost and scope of this project has
changed dramatically. To make such a claim now is completely irresponsible in
my view! Denying the public the choice, as council has chosen to do, and
proceeding further is dreadful and will have a long term damaging effect that
will contribute to its failure! Ultimately, the people will have a
vote on this, by either supporting it or not! I think it makes far more sense
for the people to vote, before more than $106 million is spent, than after it
is spent!
2/
The projected annual operating deficit of this proposed facility, is stated as
$1.198 -1.4 million annually, $540 thousand in the convention facility alone!
This loss is in addition to the operation of an idled FW Gardens, presently
with an operating loss of approximately $600,000. With the FW Gardens quite
likely to become a non-revenue producing facility, what will its operating
costs then be? With lofty projections of 180 events in the convention center
and 82 in the spectator arena, there will be a significant increase in the
operating deficit should those objective’s fail to be met. A major factor, the
consultant’s report failed to address is, what competitive advantage does Thunder
Bay have that will lure conventions etc from where they are being held to here?
With a “glut of convention facilities in North America”(Macleans Jan 16 2012),
Thunder Bay will be in tough competition to achieve these numbers! Supporting
facilities being in close proximity to a center is of great importance to the
success of the facility, council’s chosen location is not. Hamilton chose to
locate its convention facility away from their “supporting facilities”,
Hamilton is in Ontario’s “Golden Horseshoe” yet suffers. An independent KPMG
study (Hamilton Spectator June 22/ 2011) identified Hamilton as having the
“least attractive hotel package in an increasingly competitive Ontario market”.
With 1331 hotel rooms in downtown Hamilton it struggles, Thunder Bay has 589,
hardly a strength but rather a severe handicap! A City of Thunder Bay Corporate
Report (2011 105) states that, “a
critical component of the project is the proposed convention multipurpose space
and the close proximity to hotel accommodation will be a very important
consideration”. This is clearly absent
in this project and will greatly impede any likelihood of these lofty
objectives being met, or likely even close to being met! Following a failing
model such as Hamilton, is more so a road to failure than any type of success
and the likelihood of the operating deficit being drastically higher than
forecast!
3/ The proposed entrance of the City of Thunder Bay into the hospitality business, already adequately served by the private sector is of great concern, most particularly when it is at a loss estimated at $540,000 the first year! This clearly makes no sense whatsoever, and should be dropped immediately. These private facilities pay taxes to the city, the proposed facility will not. This gives the city facility an unfair advantage over the private operators, which could prove lethal to some leading to their closure. The loss of one or more of these facilities will leave a shortfall in our tax base, which no money losing facility can fill. In the March 3/2014 council meeting, Councillor McKinnon questioned why the city was in the day care business, after getting out of the money losing golf business? Why then is city council more than willing to enter into a bigger money losing business that can damage local tax paying businesses? Without question, the convention center facility of this project must be deleted, as it truly does not serve a positive purpose.
4/This project fails completely in providing parking for the expected patrons, and convenience accessing the facility. Despite claims of adequate parking for the Water St location, there is not. A March 2012 recommendation for a 500 car parkade at a cost of $16 million, was later reduced to a 200 car facility, how will that answer the parking question, it won’t! There have been suggestion’s that, the parking problem could be solved with patron’s parking at other large lots in the city, such as Lakehead University and be shuttled to the facility. This would require a significant number of shuttles, at what cost to transport the expected large number of patrons, to and from and navigating through the congestion would hardly leave the feeling of joy, but rather leave a bad taste with patrons. Claims of parking within 10 minute walks from the facility, may be welcome in summer months, but we have lengthy periods of unpleasant weather. A night of entertainment, followed by a walk through snow & cold can easily convince one that staying home “to watch the Leafs” would have been a better choice. It would be wise to understand,“If there ain’t no audience, there just ain’t no show”! I have no doubt that should this facility proceed at that location, the parking will be dealt with by almost immediately pushing the parkade number back to 500. With the problem still existing as attendance is less than forecast, surrounding properties will be purchased to develop additional parking in an attempt to salvage a majorly flawed and disastrous plan. This will add a substantial amount to an already overly expensive location. Recall, Innova Park’s cost included 2000 parking spots at $80 million!
3/ The proposed entrance of the City of Thunder Bay into the hospitality business, already adequately served by the private sector is of great concern, most particularly when it is at a loss estimated at $540,000 the first year! This clearly makes no sense whatsoever, and should be dropped immediately. These private facilities pay taxes to the city, the proposed facility will not. This gives the city facility an unfair advantage over the private operators, which could prove lethal to some leading to their closure. The loss of one or more of these facilities will leave a shortfall in our tax base, which no money losing facility can fill. In the March 3/2014 council meeting, Councillor McKinnon questioned why the city was in the day care business, after getting out of the money losing golf business? Why then is city council more than willing to enter into a bigger money losing business that can damage local tax paying businesses? Without question, the convention center facility of this project must be deleted, as it truly does not serve a positive purpose.
4/This project fails completely in providing parking for the expected patrons, and convenience accessing the facility. Despite claims of adequate parking for the Water St location, there is not. A March 2012 recommendation for a 500 car parkade at a cost of $16 million, was later reduced to a 200 car facility, how will that answer the parking question, it won’t! There have been suggestion’s that, the parking problem could be solved with patron’s parking at other large lots in the city, such as Lakehead University and be shuttled to the facility. This would require a significant number of shuttles, at what cost to transport the expected large number of patrons, to and from and navigating through the congestion would hardly leave the feeling of joy, but rather leave a bad taste with patrons. Claims of parking within 10 minute walks from the facility, may be welcome in summer months, but we have lengthy periods of unpleasant weather. A night of entertainment, followed by a walk through snow & cold can easily convince one that staying home “to watch the Leafs” would have been a better choice. It would be wise to understand,“If there ain’t no audience, there just ain’t no show”! I have no doubt that should this facility proceed at that location, the parking will be dealt with by almost immediately pushing the parkade number back to 500. With the problem still existing as attendance is less than forecast, surrounding properties will be purchased to develop additional parking in an attempt to salvage a majorly flawed and disastrous plan. This will add a substantial amount to an already overly expensive location. Recall, Innova Park’s cost included 2000 parking spots at $80 million!
5/ The
expectation that having an AHL team as the principal tenant long term is quite
unlikely. Franchise history in the AHL shows at least 22 AHL franchises have
relocated in the past 13 years, with only 3 franchises remaining in the same
locale for more than 20 years! A consultants reports states a break even number
for an AHL team is 4200. The LU Thunderwolves average 2500-3000 fans with a $12
ticket price, one of the best attendance averages of any local hockey team in
our history. AHL ticket prices in Canada range from $20-40, to expect an additional 12-1500 fans
at a60-100% higher ticket price can hardly be considered a recipe for success!
Team owners are not in the business to break even, ownership is in it to make
money! In efforts to secure professional sports franchises, communities are
sometimes expected to cover team losses, is this an avenue Thunder Bay is
heading down? The use of tax dollars should absolutely not be considered to
cover any team losses should this suggestion arise! This
same principle also applies to concert/theatre promotion, promoters are in it
to make money, not break even. Abbotsford BC is the red flag to these lofty
ambitions that are devoid of reality, and are delusional thinking! Abbottsford
covers their AHL team’s losses to the degree of $2-3 million each season, I
would think it is a fair expectation that team is a likely candidate for
relocation when its deal with Abbottsford expires. Left with an empty rink,
what will be the burden to the taxpayers? By all appearances, city powers are
more than willing to travel down this “yellow brick road”. Interesting to note
that Vancouver BC was a community that warned this city against our perennial
white elephant Victoriaville. Will Thunder Bay city powers again ignore the
experience of another BC community and lead the city down the “yellow brick
road”? Sadly I am afraid they will, with disastrous financial peril to our
community!
6/
Forecasts of “Economic Impact/Spinoff , claims of being “Economic Drivers” and
“job creators”, are in my opinion nothing more than “snake oil” to make these
projects sound more attractive and something they really are not! I find in
most cases these forecasts are usually overstated and go largely unfulfilled.
The reality that occurs when the “honeymoon” period ends is usually a further
burden on already strained budgets, both of the community and its overburdened
tax payers, to satisfy delusions of a select few feeding an “appetite for
destruction”! The construction of any facility does provide work short term, is
this a selling point I think not, and any long term jobs created are likely
nothing more than low wage. Any common sense cost/benefit analysis would
conclude that in its present form and cost, this project should be halted and
rethought much more sensibly! Spending in excess of $106 million and rising is
a dangerous gamble Thunder Bay should not proceed any further with. We are
looking at a location that is quite clearly cost prohibitive, with likely cost
over runs that will drive the final cost in my estimation in excess of $150
million by the time the parking situation is reasonably addressed! I believe
the expected annual operating costs are understated, as unfulfilled projections
will drive the costs in excess of $2 million annually quite quickly, and grow!
Thunder Bay’s “contribution” to this projected, presently claimed to be in the
neighborhood of $35, is to come from the “Renew Thunder Bay” fund which
presently has only $20-21 million in it, where will the additional $14 million
come from? Should city powers choose to proceed with this, I believe our city
is headed towards a financial tsunami which will cripple Thunder Bay
financially! In closing I say, “Be careful what you wish for Thunder Bay, it
might come true”!
Sunday, March 2, 2014
FW Gardens is not falling down! City Feasibility Report on a Multiplex Oct 2006
Contrary to the "Cry Wolf" of some people,the FW Gardens is structurally sound. Just check out the report the city got Sept 11/2013
http://www.thunderbay.ca/Assets/Fort+William+Gardens+Structural+Report.pdf
Check out this October 16/2006 City Report on, Development and Feasibility of Multi-Use Entertainment, Sports and Convention Centre
http://ctbpub.thunderbay.ca/ctbapps/nonlinecorprpts.nsf/dc478bb8f932d41085256afd0054df18/08d042edc35d70328525718f006a6dcc?
http://www.thunderbay.ca/Assets/Fort+William+Gardens+Structural+Report.pdf
Check out this October 16/2006 City Report on, Development and Feasibility of Multi-Use Entertainment, Sports and Convention Centre
http://ctbpub.thunderbay.ca/ctbapps/nonlinecorprpts.nsf/dc478bb8f932d41085256afd0054df18/08d042edc35d70328525718f006a6dcc?
Saturday, March 1, 2014
The Letter Council Really Won't Like!
Why
do we need a plebiscite on the location and building of a new multiplex/Event
Center?
“The proposal involves building a $50-60 million
facility with about 5500 seats.” CJ Dec 15 2009
The present cost is $106 million plus!
“The city’s share of the estimated $60 million project is $18 million”
Editor
note: CJ May 5 2010
The city’s share is presently $35 million plus!
Why is building this facility such an urgency?
" As an arena, it could go for another
20 to 30 years,but the condition of FW Gardens isn’t the issue” Community Services manager Greg Alexander. TBT
Newswatch May 5 2010
"I think that’s already a done deal
and I don’t think it should be a done deal," said Hobbs
"I think that should go to a plebiscite," he said, adding that the electorate should vote on any big-ticket items. "It’s going to be a $100-million expense by the time we get there. It’s $100 million right now."
"I think that should go to a plebiscite," he said, adding that the electorate should vote on any big-ticket items. "It’s going to be a $100-million expense by the time we get there. It’s $100 million right now."
TBT Newswatch Sept 23 2010
“Clearly the downtown site we see as a
great opportunity, if we can do it without having to acquire more parking,”
said Commisso.
northernontariobusiness.com/Regional-News
August 19 2011
“A Parkade. Surprise!” “One estimate puts
a parkade price tag with 500 spaces at $16 million.” CJ March 14 2012
Shouldn’t this have eliminated this location
as cost prohibitive?
“Hobbs said he’s been hearing loud and
clear that people want to see the centre at Innova Park.” "The public has
to make this decision, not the council, not the mayor," Hobbs said.
"We’re going to take the advice from public on this one." Current
River Coun. Andrew Foulds agreed
TBT Newswatch June 2 2011
“Hobbs thinks the fix is in
among consultants and city administrators to arrange that in order to assure
the waterfront district gets the multiplex”
CJ Editorial April 27 2012
Really Keith? Most people think this as
well!
"It has to be affordable and it has to
be sustainable. If we don't receive funding from the Feds and the province,
this is going to be a no-go. "I know I'm hearing loud and clear that we
need federal and provincial money to make it go forward." TBT Newswatch Dec 13 2011
The cost has doubled since first proposed,
projected operating costs are nearly double that of FW Gardens! Is that really
affordable and sustainable?
“I have stated before I was elected Mayor
that the People of Thunder Bay need to decide this issue and I haven't nor will
I change my view on this.”
Email April 29 2012
Well Keith, if you really are a man of your word, lets have a
plebiscite! You did say “the
electorate should vote on any big-ticket items”?
It is quite clear why we need to have a plebiscite on both, proceeding
with this facility, and the location of this facility. Bigger and more
difficult question’s to answer honestly are, Why wouldn’t you have one, and why
is council continuing to stonewall the public on this?
Friday, February 21, 2014
Be careful what you wish for Thunder Bay, it might come true!
With all the big excitement, feeding Thunder Bay’s appetite for
destruction, I've been hearing several suggestions for the proposed AHL team
name. I kinda found this one perhaps the most identifiable with the way our city
seems to be going. “THUNDER BAY BROKE”
Its kind of in the same spirit as Lightning, Storm etc. I think it might present a real portrayal of Thunder Bay & its future!
Its kind of in the same spirit as Lightning, Storm etc. I think it might present a real portrayal of Thunder Bay & its future!
Is an AHL team a “Good
fit” in Thunder Bay?
Since the LU
Thunderwolves were formed, more than 22 AHL teams have relocated.
Only 3 AHL teams have
remained in the same community more than 20 years.
An AHL team would need to average 4200 fans to break
even.
AHL tickets are in the
$20- 40 range, LU tickets are $12with an average of 2500-3000 fans.
Abbottsford BC thought
it would be a great thing, taxpayers now subsidize that AHL team $2-3 million
dollars per season.
Team owners are in it
to make money, not break even. If they can’t make it here, They will move on!
Clearly an AHL team in
Thunder Bay is not likely to succeed long term. Who will be making up for a facility
with no primary tenant? You the taxpayer!
If other communities
with a larger population base couldn’t make it work, How will Thunder Bay?
Be careful what you
wish for Thunder Bay,
IT JUST MAY COME TRUE!
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Open house and public meeting regarding a Plebiscite
Concerned Taxpayers of Thunder Bay are holding an open house and public
meeting regarding a Plebiscite in the upcoming municpal election concerning the
proposed Event Centre.
This meeting will be held at the Mary
J L Black Library 901 S.Edward Street on Tues. March 11th from 5-9
pm.
The meeting will be open for the public to have their say!
Be sure to attend!
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Look What Can Be Done for Only $38 million ,instead of $106 million!
http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/panthers-ask-for-public-funding-promise-competitive-team-in-return-no-really/
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Letter for November 26 2012 Council Meeting
I am writing this letter over concerns I have regarding, Thunder Bay’s proposed Event Center. There are several concerns I have about this project that I will present here.
1/ Facility Cost : In the CJ Dec 17 2010,the multiplex was suggested to the public. The size was 5500 seats at a cost of $50-60 million. An example presented was the 6100 seat Essar Centre in Sault Ste Marie, built in 2006 at a cost of $25 million.
According to the Oct 9 2012 Consultants report, Thunder Bay’s expected cost is $106,116,750 million at the Water St location, this does not include the cost of moving the Camelot St Hydro station, a cost I’ve been told to be $6.3 million. The report includes the cost of a 200 car parkade, contrary to a March 2012 recommendation for a 500 car parkade at a cost of $16 million. I ask if the “missing” 300 spots are a future surprise we can expect in the future? With the 200 spots costing $7 million (not the $6 million specified) ,the cost for these missing 300 spots will add another $ 10.5 million to the Water St location. What will be the cost to acquire the properties, demolish and site preparation for these spots? I have been told in the neighbourhood of $2-3 million.
The Innova Park location is priced at $106,510 million with no extra costs. The Innova Park price also includes a cost of $4.175 million for roadwork within Innova Park. Travelling into Innova Park weekly, I have observed the roads to be in satisfactory condition, though work will likely be needed in the future but not as a priority, as there are numerous other roads more urgently requiring work. I also feel the roadwork cost is improperly allocated to Innova Parks cost. I summarize the cost as such.
Water St Cost $106,116,750
Hydro Stn relocation & cleanup $6.3 million
Additional 300 car parkade $10.5 million
Property acquisition, demolition, cleanup, etc $ 2.5 million
Total Cost at Water Street $125,416,750
Innova Park Cost $106,510,00
Less misallocated and unnecessary road work $4,175,000
Total Cost at Innova Park $102,335,000
Clearly the Innova Park option is a far cheaper location by $23,081,750. This is a substantial amount and clearly illustrates the facility should be built at Innova Park
2/ Access & Parking: The cost of parking in the consultants report includes 2000 spots at Innova Park. It does not include the full 500 spots specified in March 2012 as mentioned above. With access north to Oliver Rd via Burwood/Central/Golf Links from the NW parking lot, and south access onto Golf Links/Edward/Harbour Expressway from the SW parking lot, will make exiting Innova Park quite efficient. Innova Parks traffic flow will be substantially more efficient than from the Downtown parkades, and other parking areas. The report states that once patrons arrive at their vehicle, there departure will be immediate. This claim is quite unlikely, as exiting any parkade is a slow process and this is compounded by traffic signals at Red River Rd and Camelot St that will slow the traffic flow.
The average walk to patrons vehicle is much shorter at Innova Park, on flat terrain which will make access easier for all patrons. The hilly terrain surrounding the Water St location will become an impediment to many ,as well as deterring many. This is quite important, with over 50% of Thunder Bay’s population over the age of 50. Innova Parks central location makes it equally accessible from all area’s of the city.
3/ Proximity to Supporting Facilities : Again Innova Park is superior to Water St. Supporting facilities at Lakehead University, Confederation College, and the city’s better hotels along Arthur St are a 5-10 minute Drive. While Water St has several fine restaurants close, Innova Park has several fine restaurants with in a 5-10 minute drive. It is also a fair assumption that with the growth of Innova Park, other restaurants, hotel(s) will choose to locate there. The close proximity of these supporting facilities is of great importance to the success of the facility. Hamilton chose to locate its convention facility away from their “supporting facilities”, and it struggles in Canada’s “Golden Horseshoe”. How can we we expect to succeed by following a failing business model?
( see Gary Laine: Viewpoint CJ April 27 2012)
4/ Benefit to the whole city : Building at Innova Park offers the unique opportunity to help offset its building and operating cost. With the stimulating of Innova Park, the sale of lots there will allow the city to recover its original investment, with sale profits helping offset the cost of the facility. The new tax revenue off these lots will help offset the operating cost of the facility. Innova Parks central location offers benefit(s) to all business in Thunder Bay, not one specific area.
5/ Operating Costs : The suggested yearly operating costs are suggested to be between $1.198 million to $1.404 million, based on 40 hockey games and 180 events in the convention facility. The are quite ambitious projections and failing to meet them will only result in a far higher operation deficit. Other cities have fell far short on their projections, at a huge cost to taxpayers! One major omission is, what is Thunder Bay’s “competitive advantage”, so that we can secure these dates, at a loss to other communities? This is more concerning, when according to MacLeans magazine (Jan 16 2012) there is a glut of convention facilities in North America.
The suggested 40 hockey games, is a lofty goal, as presently the LU Thunder wolves play 20-25 games including exhibition & playoffs, with an AHL team playing 35 home games each season. In a previous report, an AHL team needed an average of 4200 fans to break even, prices in the AHL range $20-30. The LU Thunderwolves average 2500-3000 fans at $12 per ticket, clearly the AHL option is an unlikely scenario when our geographic location further compounds it. Teams in the AHL have had a recent history of being “short term”, with several relocating on a seemingly regular basis. One needs only look at the Abbotsford BC experience (CJ March 3 2012) to forget an AHL team as a prospective tenant.
The suggestion of “naming rights”, is not a certainty as the TB Community Auditorium explored this avenue with little success.
6/ Peoples Preference : Several polls that have run in the Chronicle Journal, with over 1500 voters have preferred Innova Park over Water St.
May 10 2011
Innova Park 35% 551 votes vs. Water St 26% 411 votes, the other four choices account for the balance of the 1595 votes.
June 27 2011
Innova Park 60% 1273 votes vs. Water St 29& 613 votes, the other two choices account for the balance of the 2122 votes.
Oct 17 2012 In the wrong location 64% (973 votes)
Perfect-Its the right location 21% (312 votes)
Something taxpayers can't afford 15% (221 votes)
No Opinion 1% (8 votes)
Total Votes 1514
Quite clearly, the people in Thunder Bay overwhelmingly prefer the Innova Park location, and loudly reject Water St as a location for this facility. I am of a firm belief that the taxpayers of Thunder Bay must decide the location. The taxpayers are the owners of it and ultimately will “Vote” on its location, by either supporting it, or not supporting it! It makes sense to me that the vote be held in a plebiscite to, decide its (future) location, and if we should proceed at this time. This is a very contentious and divisive issue in the community, with some resorting to personal attacks to make their point. I know as I have been on the receiving end of these personal barbs. We the people, must make the choice that wil leave a positive lasting legacy we can celebrate and bring our city together as one. To do otherwise is a trap for fools!
1/ Facility Cost : In the CJ Dec 17 2010,the multiplex was suggested to the public. The size was 5500 seats at a cost of $50-60 million. An example presented was the 6100 seat Essar Centre in Sault Ste Marie, built in 2006 at a cost of $25 million.
According to the Oct 9 2012 Consultants report, Thunder Bay’s expected cost is $106,116,750 million at the Water St location, this does not include the cost of moving the Camelot St Hydro station, a cost I’ve been told to be $6.3 million. The report includes the cost of a 200 car parkade, contrary to a March 2012 recommendation for a 500 car parkade at a cost of $16 million. I ask if the “missing” 300 spots are a future surprise we can expect in the future? With the 200 spots costing $7 million (not the $6 million specified) ,the cost for these missing 300 spots will add another $ 10.5 million to the Water St location. What will be the cost to acquire the properties, demolish and site preparation for these spots? I have been told in the neighbourhood of $2-3 million.
The Innova Park location is priced at $106,510 million with no extra costs. The Innova Park price also includes a cost of $4.175 million for roadwork within Innova Park. Travelling into Innova Park weekly, I have observed the roads to be in satisfactory condition, though work will likely be needed in the future but not as a priority, as there are numerous other roads more urgently requiring work. I also feel the roadwork cost is improperly allocated to Innova Parks cost. I summarize the cost as such.
Water St Cost $106,116,750
Hydro Stn relocation & cleanup $6.3 million
Additional 300 car parkade $10.5 million
Property acquisition, demolition, cleanup, etc $ 2.5 million
Total Cost at Water Street $125,416,750
Innova Park Cost $106,510,00
Less misallocated and unnecessary road work $4,175,000
Total Cost at Innova Park $102,335,000
Clearly the Innova Park option is a far cheaper location by $23,081,750. This is a substantial amount and clearly illustrates the facility should be built at Innova Park
2/ Access & Parking: The cost of parking in the consultants report includes 2000 spots at Innova Park. It does not include the full 500 spots specified in March 2012 as mentioned above. With access north to Oliver Rd via Burwood/Central/Golf Links from the NW parking lot, and south access onto Golf Links/Edward/Harbour Expressway from the SW parking lot, will make exiting Innova Park quite efficient. Innova Parks traffic flow will be substantially more efficient than from the Downtown parkades, and other parking areas. The report states that once patrons arrive at their vehicle, there departure will be immediate. This claim is quite unlikely, as exiting any parkade is a slow process and this is compounded by traffic signals at Red River Rd and Camelot St that will slow the traffic flow.
The average walk to patrons vehicle is much shorter at Innova Park, on flat terrain which will make access easier for all patrons. The hilly terrain surrounding the Water St location will become an impediment to many ,as well as deterring many. This is quite important, with over 50% of Thunder Bay’s population over the age of 50. Innova Parks central location makes it equally accessible from all area’s of the city.
3/ Proximity to Supporting Facilities : Again Innova Park is superior to Water St. Supporting facilities at Lakehead University, Confederation College, and the city’s better hotels along Arthur St are a 5-10 minute Drive. While Water St has several fine restaurants close, Innova Park has several fine restaurants with in a 5-10 minute drive. It is also a fair assumption that with the growth of Innova Park, other restaurants, hotel(s) will choose to locate there. The close proximity of these supporting facilities is of great importance to the success of the facility. Hamilton chose to locate its convention facility away from their “supporting facilities”, and it struggles in Canada’s “Golden Horseshoe”. How can we we expect to succeed by following a failing business model?
( see Gary Laine: Viewpoint CJ April 27 2012)
4/ Benefit to the whole city : Building at Innova Park offers the unique opportunity to help offset its building and operating cost. With the stimulating of Innova Park, the sale of lots there will allow the city to recover its original investment, with sale profits helping offset the cost of the facility. The new tax revenue off these lots will help offset the operating cost of the facility. Innova Parks central location offers benefit(s) to all business in Thunder Bay, not one specific area.
5/ Operating Costs : The suggested yearly operating costs are suggested to be between $1.198 million to $1.404 million, based on 40 hockey games and 180 events in the convention facility. The are quite ambitious projections and failing to meet them will only result in a far higher operation deficit. Other cities have fell far short on their projections, at a huge cost to taxpayers! One major omission is, what is Thunder Bay’s “competitive advantage”, so that we can secure these dates, at a loss to other communities? This is more concerning, when according to MacLeans magazine (Jan 16 2012) there is a glut of convention facilities in North America.
The suggested 40 hockey games, is a lofty goal, as presently the LU Thunder wolves play 20-25 games including exhibition & playoffs, with an AHL team playing 35 home games each season. In a previous report, an AHL team needed an average of 4200 fans to break even, prices in the AHL range $20-30. The LU Thunderwolves average 2500-3000 fans at $12 per ticket, clearly the AHL option is an unlikely scenario when our geographic location further compounds it. Teams in the AHL have had a recent history of being “short term”, with several relocating on a seemingly regular basis. One needs only look at the Abbotsford BC experience (CJ March 3 2012) to forget an AHL team as a prospective tenant.
The suggestion of “naming rights”, is not a certainty as the TB Community Auditorium explored this avenue with little success.
6/ Peoples Preference : Several polls that have run in the Chronicle Journal, with over 1500 voters have preferred Innova Park over Water St.
May 10 2011
Innova Park 35% 551 votes vs. Water St 26% 411 votes, the other four choices account for the balance of the 1595 votes.
June 27 2011
Innova Park 60% 1273 votes vs. Water St 29& 613 votes, the other two choices account for the balance of the 2122 votes.
Oct 17 2012 In the wrong location 64% (973 votes)
Perfect-Its the right location 21% (312 votes)
Something taxpayers can't afford 15% (221 votes)
No Opinion 1% (8 votes)
Total Votes 1514
Quite clearly, the people in Thunder Bay overwhelmingly prefer the Innova Park location, and loudly reject Water St as a location for this facility. I am of a firm belief that the taxpayers of Thunder Bay must decide the location. The taxpayers are the owners of it and ultimately will “Vote” on its location, by either supporting it, or not supporting it! It makes sense to me that the vote be held in a plebiscite to, decide its (future) location, and if we should proceed at this time. This is a very contentious and divisive issue in the community, with some resorting to personal attacks to make their point. I know as I have been on the receiving end of these personal barbs. We the people, must make the choice that wil leave a positive lasting legacy we can celebrate and bring our city together as one. To do otherwise is a trap for fools!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)