Lo Changes Lansdowne Vote To No

If the vote was tomorrow, I’d vote against it for several reasons beyond just the cost.

As you know, I changed my position to support the planning process back in November 2023, as I felt an uninformed no was just as bad as an uninformed yes. Since then, there have been six Lansdowne-related updates, including the auditor general’s first audit of the proposed waterfall agreement. The other updates were mostly related to planning stages, like detailed design, site plan, and non-binding contract information.

—

This post from Barrhaven East Councillor Wilson Lo is courtesy of the city-wide community group Your Applewood Acres (And Beyond) Neighbours

—

Interestingly, while none of the updates themselves swayed me either way, it was actually staff’s responses to related questions that have been making me more uncomfortable with the project. That includes their dispute of the auditor general’s findings relating to the waterfall agreement and staff’s “we’ll deal with it when we get there” attitude, all in an unstable economic environment and new/emerging core municipal priorities.

Some examples of questions I’ve asked staff in update briefings:

What happens if there are severe cost and labour fluctuations as a result of world events (in the context of the City assuming risk where it previously didn’t in 2.0 versus 1.0)?

What happens if the residential market slows down to a point in 2030 where the developer is no longer able to construct (noting air rights will be sold, but part of paying down the cost of 2.0 relies on property taxes from the apartments)?

What happens if any of the sports teams leave, especially the RedBlacks?

What happens if OSEG becomes bankrupt at any point after a binding contract is signed?

Though staff did provide detailed responses, they generally can be summarized as “we’ll deal with it when we get there.” Additionally, supporters and proponents continue to sell the project as the least worst option, rather than the best option, using threats of teams leaving or poorer returns as reasons to pursue the project.

How much debt servicing there is depends on the final cost of the project. If the mayor and staff’s $419 million figure turns out to be correct, then we’re looking at about $16 million a year in debt servicing for 40 years starting in 2031, which equals just less than a one-per-cent property tax increase. If we use the auditor general’s 2024 estimate of $493 million, the annual debt servicing will be closer to $20 million a year, or just more than a one-per-cent increase, for 40 years. Obviously, if it’s more, it’ll be even higher.

Something I will note is that there’s a bit of misinformation out there about how much the city will spend directly on the project. While the project overall is estimated to cost $419 million (or whatever it ends up being), the existing tax base will shoulder about $160 million of that cost.

The remainder of the cost will be paid for indirectly by the development’s residential and retail property taxes, as well as any revenue coming from the financial arrangement. Still a lot of money. Of course, if the worst case scenario plays out,, there is a risk the existing tax base shoulders the entire cost of the project. Hope that makes sense.

Hope this helps. I’ll be sharing more thoughts once the report is released, about three to four weeks before the related committee meeting.

For You:

Uh-Oh. City Tackles Food Crisis: PATTON

Potter Disputes Sutcliffe Lansdowne Message

Speed Cameras: Revenue Over Safety: BENN

New Video Screens Show Transpo Woes: MULVIHILL

A Survey For OC Transpo That Works: CRERAR

Bookmark The Bulldog, click here