The Basic Unanswered Questions From Lansdowne (2)

Here are some questions arising from Lansdowne as a joint planning and finance committee decides the project’s future:

When The Bulldog asked city media relations how much money the stadium and arena made for the city, the answer was “it’s complicated.” In other words, Happy Town News either didn’t know or didn’t want to say. The fact of the matter was that the arena and stadium complex made absolutely nothing for the city and its taxpayers. Worse, the deal was designed that way.

Why did the city sign such a lopsided deal? What was the motivation for it? Why do you lay out two-thirds of a billion dollars to make absolutely no money? The auditor general is right to investigate the workings of Lansdowne. Let’s hope Nathalie Gougeon does a better job on this audit than she did on the audit of police actions during the Freedom Convoy. And by the way, where are the two audits on the Trillium Line with its suspicious procurement? Those two audits have kept a very interested public waiting for almost a year … to begin … not complete.

Why does the city consider property taxes paid by residents of residential on the site as revenue from Lansdowne? That’s what every development pays. If the money from property taxes is considered revenue for Lansdowne, who pays for the city service installations for the property owners at the park? Other non-Lansdowne property owners. That’s not revenue.

Why do Stephanson and OSEG throw around multi-million-dollar figures for revenue for the “partnership” when all that revenue goes to OSEG? That’s just a mask for the fact that the city gets nothing but debts from Lansdowne for an “asset” that will be worth nothing at the end of the Lansdowne agreement except the value of the land on which the obsolete buildings reside?

Why did the city sign such a lopsided agreement that absolutely favours OSEG? Did the city do that knowingly? Did it make a mistake? Did OSEG pull the wool over the civic eyes? Or was the city just stupid? The alternatives are not good. Hello, auditor general.


Why would the city put itself in the gruesome conflict of interest of being the regulator of development in the community and also be the “partner” of a developer?

Why is the city at Lansdowne not looking out for the best interests of the community and its taxpayers? Hello, auditor general.

Is Lansdowne 1.0’s waterfall the same as Lansdowne 2.0’s air rights?

Why is the Lansdowne deal so unnecessarily complicated? Is it to inform or confuse? If you don’t understand it, don’t buy it.

Why are the city and OSEG so concerned about finishing this deal so quickly? The interest-rate environment does not favour the city. So why?

Ken Gray

 —

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

Answer These Lansdowne Questions Councillor Carr

Reckless Randy Backs Lansdowne 2.0

Dump The Luxury Housing, Jeff Leiper: THE VOTER

Bulldog Tops 100,000 Page View Barrier

 

 

 

Don’t miss our regular features
Everything Ottawa      Full Local     Bulldog Canadian
Opinion    Comments    Breaking News    Auto
Ontario   World    Get Cheap Gas   Big Money
Pop Gossip   Your Home    Relax …   Tech
Bulldog Weather    Full Local Sports
TV/Movies   Travel
Page 2   Page 3   Page 4   Page 5   Page 6

 

Other features:    Full Bulldog Index    Return to Bulldog Home

1 Response

  1. Brian Tansey says:

    we’re now at the end of the (1st) day re LPP2.0; it’s clear to me that the core of the problem these days is that we have a ( theoretically ) neutral but expert City Staff … actually behaving as promoters ; this generally means we would be quite naive to trust what they’ve been telling Councillors … and NOT telling Councillors.

    This means that a sufficient bunch of well intended Councillors will have to say ‘pause ‘ …. soon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

Paid Content

Home   Full Bulldog Index