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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)