Lansdowne: Sketchy Bluster From Denley: GRAY

This is a critical look at a Randall Denley column in the Citizen from October 20, whole-heartedly supporting Lansdowne 2.0.

The segments of Denley’s comments are in quotation marks. The boldface analysis below each quote is from Bulldog editor Ken Gray:

As it turns out, the city’s cost estimate was spot on. Pending council approval, the city has accepted a construction bid that would bring the overall project in at $418.8 million, one of three proposals that were all close in price.

There is an interesting presumption of approval in Denley’s column. Nothing about should it go forward but rather here are the reasons it is going ahead. Not might go ahead, Just go ahead. Denley should remember that debt from the project goes from capital budget to payments from the operating budget that must, somehow, fund the $11-billion City of Ottawa shortfall in infrastructure, cover OC Transpo’s negactive revenue, snow-plowing and road-flattening … if the city still does flatten roads. Potholes say otherwise.

The new revenue figure is $288.2 million. Money from the sale of air rights for two residential towers that will abut the stadium and a hotel tax contribution from Ottawa Tourism are both higher than expected.

I haven’t looked at the dictionary but are “air rights” a synonym for “waterfall?”

Part of the premise of the higher revenue is that better facilities will attract more national and international events to Ottawa, bringing more money into Lansdowne and the city generally. It’s a valid approach.

Have these horrible facilities we have now stopped us from holding Grey Cups, or Briers, or world rugby championships, or Memorial Cups or the world junior hockey championships or the women’s soccer world cup? And don’t forget that Ottawa’s sports infrastructure includes the successful Canadian Tire Centre. So sorry, but where is that $228 million coming from with new revenue? An arena that can’t hold the demand for women’s professional hockey? A new stadium without the current roof. Maybe Denley should sit at a game in a rain storm in November and see how much he likes that roof.

Some contend that there is a pot of money that would be better spent on other things, but without Lansdowne 2.0 there would be no pot and no money.

No just extra debt in a horribly over-taxed operating budget paying off principal and interest for Lansdowne.

There should be no doubt that the north-side stands and the Civic Centre rink tucked under them require replacement.

There’s no doubt in Denley’s mind (with nothing to support his argument) that the north-side stands and Civic Centre must be replaced. Many houses older than the Civic Centre successfully get the roof fixed without dynamiting the whole building. That’s how it works. There are accessibility problems on the northside so build some ramps. Don’t down the stands.

Overall, the latest version of Lansdowne 2.0 is a responsible and necessary project. Councillors should give it a sound endorsement when they meet to approve it next month.

Ah yes, council is meeting to approve Lansdowne 2.0, not discussing if it should go forward. There’s that presumption again. “Responsible” are not questionable revenue targets a la Lansdowne 1.0 nor adding a whopping debt to an already woefully insufficient operating budget. “Necessary” if you think blowing up the house to replace the roof is a good idea. Councillors should not give it a sound endorsement and instead should be looking at a way to extricate the city from another money losing 11 years of Lansdowne. The city is involved in a project it doesn’t understand and that lack of understanding shows in the financial results.

Lansdowne has been a dog from Day 1 and will be a pooch in the future. Lansdowne 2.0 doesn’t (or can’t) address the basic problems that made 1.0 a failure. Those are a project which is the wrong idea in the wrong location with the wrong transportation. All the fiscal obfuscation or hocus-pocus doesn’t solve the insurmountable and existential bad thinking that went into the first Lansdowne and continues with the second Lansdowne and the third, fourth and fifth failing Lansdownes.

Lansdowne can’t be fixed. It was a broke puppy before the first hole was dug and the first brick laid. It’s a bad idea gone bad.

Lansdowne doesn’t work now or in the future no mater how many flawed ideas are brought forward to seem to fix the project.

If councillors care about this community, really care, they’ll reject the sketchy justifications that are Lansdowne 2.0.

It’s throwing good money after bad.

Ken Gray is an award-winning journalist who worked at five major Canadian newspapers. He is an educator, broadcaster and at present is the editor and founder of the 16-year-old pioneering internet publication, The Bulldog.

For You:

Lansdowne Bad Economics: CHERNUSHENKO

Get Out Of Lansdowne While You Still Can: GRAY

Chocolate Cake For Breakfast: PATTON

Mark Sutcliffe Touts Lansdowne 2.0

Bookmark The Bulldog, click here