Setting Denley Straight On Lansdowne: THE VOTER

The Ottawa Citizen’s Randall Denley has conveniently forgotten a few things on Lansdowne financing.

First, using his figures which might or might not be accurate but are what he bases his argument on, the cost of the debt servicing over the next 40+ years is a cost of spending the $419 million and should be included in the comparative costs.

If there was no $419 million being borrowed, there would be no $7 million to service it. That means that the actual replacement cost is closer to $699 million, the sum of $7 million per annum times 40 years or $280 million plus $419 million. When I went to school, the difference between spending $699 million to build new and $625 million to maintain the existing structure for 50 years means that it would be $74 million more expensive to rebuild.

However, $74 million is not an accurate or relevant figure for two reasons.

First, one is a figure based on 40 years of expenditures and the other is for 50 years of expenses. The amount to maintain the current facility for 40 years, not 50, would be 80 per cent of the $625 million amount which is $500 million. Over 40 years, building new would cost $699 million while keeping the existing structure for the same period would cost $500 million meaning it’s $199 million less to stay with the current structure.

Second, and perhaps most important, Denley has omitted a huge cost centre in his calculations. Does he think there will be no maintenance costs for the new structure for the next 40 years? I’m no expert in the cost of maintaining a building such as this but, since others are pulling numbers out of the air or other places, let’s say the cost of maintaining a new building over 40 years is 25 per cent of what it would cost to maintain an older structure. That would add another $125 million to the cost of Lansdowne 2.0 so the running total is now $824 million which is just shy of $200 million more that the number they’re bandying about for the status quo for 50 years. Comparing 40-year costs for both situations means a new build, at $824M, is $324M more expensive than the $500 million to keep the existing structure.

Missing in Denley’s presentation of the facts as he sees them is any acknowledgment that the $419-million figure is just a starting point for very preliminary calculations. Anyone who has ever followed the cost of any building being constructed, but particularly one of this nature, will be aware that the initial cost will balloon, sometimes to astronomical heights, over the course of construction. We know that this number will have been kept as low as humanely possible to avoid alarming the populace and is an artificially deflated figure that will grow, as if by magic, as time goes on.

All of this is just another example of how far from reality people like Denley and others are who’ve drunk the Kool-Aid being supplied by the city. They accept, without question and with little or no factual information, the nonsense being spewed by the Lansdowne partners as the gospel truth when they should be approaching it with a critical eye and a huge spoonful of salt – a grain is not enough.

Good journalism, Denley? You can do better.

The Voter is a respected community activist and long-time Bulldog commenter who prefers to keep her identity private.

For You:

City Can’t Make A Decision On Garbage: PATTON

Lansdowne: Comparing Apples To Pop Tarts

The Justification For Spending: WHOPPER WATCH

Bookmark The Bulldog, click here