coladin
Registered User
- Sep 18, 2009
- 11,802
- 4,496
I initially felt I was deadset against any city money going into Lebreton, save the typical city infrastructure that needs to be invested. However, reading Kelly Egan's article, made me reconsider my position a little bit:
"Privately, Melnyk has been raising the spectre of public financing. This is not a crazy idea. It has been done in cities across Canada and around North America, including in Edmonton, where the new arena is described as a cornerstone in an admirable act of city building.
(It might help to remember, too, that TD Place (stadium and arena ) are city-owned facilities.)
You do wonder why Melnyk has not engaged the broader community in a conversation about whether funding from three levels of government should be on the table, to create an arena that would be ours, not his. The hockey team plays 41 regular-season home games, after all. Would the arena, or “entertainment centre,” not deliver public benefits the rest of the year?"
Edmonton has really benefitted from their investment into Rogers Centre and the surrounding area.
Perhaps the mayor being crystal clear in not wanting any part of city financing was a little premature? Could the City have struck a deal to use the arena for city events as part of its payments into the arena and Lebreton?
"
It doesn’t matter that Mayor Jim Watson isn’t a fan of public financing. It doesn’t start or end there. There will be other mayors. There will not be another LeBreton Flats.
Neither do I think the public is totally close-minded to the idea. You know, I only take the bus when my car is in the shop, and this occurs with alarming frequency, but I support the spending of billions on public transit I will hardly use. I don’t visit the library as much as I used to, but I support my tax dollars being used to build a new central branch and support all the others.
We have national art galleries and museums that lots of people never go to. The average person might be at the National Arts Centre once or twice a year. Wonder who paid for that high-brow funhouse? We all pay for schools long after we’re through the system. It’s part of funding a civil society."
Someone touched on this in one of the other threads, but felt it was a good discussion to have on its own about public financing for Lebreton. I haven't been to a library or on a bus since the early 80s. Museums? Maybe once every few years?
"I would throw in one other factor. In the spring of 2019, the $2.1-billion LRT system is to open, with stations at Pimisi and Bayview, and a lot of nothing in between. Can no reasonable case be mounted that it requires public financing to make something happen there?
But we’ve never really had the debate, have we? (It would have been useful, and certainly fun, to have had a referendum on this question in the October municipal election, but alas, the idea had no champion. The city spent $3.5 billion in 2018 — would we even notice $50 million thrown at a civic arena?)"
True, if the mayor was maybe trying to do something on his end, financially, to help both sides to cooperate on the Lebreton partnership, maybe a question added to the ballot box would have been a great idea. I am willing to bet it would have been a resounding "no", but framed in a certain way, it might have been palatable to many in the city.
"The point is, there is another way to view the proposition of a publicly supported arena than “Senior on Fixed Income Forced to Help Pay Bobby Ryan’s Salary.”
This is something that many would have a hard time rationalizing.
I have to admit, his article did sway me towards the fact that perhaps the mayor could have done more on a crucial and probably the most valuable piece of property in all the land.
"Privately, Melnyk has been raising the spectre of public financing. This is not a crazy idea. It has been done in cities across Canada and around North America, including in Edmonton, where the new arena is described as a cornerstone in an admirable act of city building.
(It might help to remember, too, that TD Place (stadium and arena ) are city-owned facilities.)
You do wonder why Melnyk has not engaged the broader community in a conversation about whether funding from three levels of government should be on the table, to create an arena that would be ours, not his. The hockey team plays 41 regular-season home games, after all. Would the arena, or “entertainment centre,” not deliver public benefits the rest of the year?"
Edmonton has really benefitted from their investment into Rogers Centre and the surrounding area.
Perhaps the mayor being crystal clear in not wanting any part of city financing was a little premature? Could the City have struck a deal to use the arena for city events as part of its payments into the arena and Lebreton?
"
It doesn’t matter that Mayor Jim Watson isn’t a fan of public financing. It doesn’t start or end there. There will be other mayors. There will not be another LeBreton Flats.
Neither do I think the public is totally close-minded to the idea. You know, I only take the bus when my car is in the shop, and this occurs with alarming frequency, but I support the spending of billions on public transit I will hardly use. I don’t visit the library as much as I used to, but I support my tax dollars being used to build a new central branch and support all the others.
We have national art galleries and museums that lots of people never go to. The average person might be at the National Arts Centre once or twice a year. Wonder who paid for that high-brow funhouse? We all pay for schools long after we’re through the system. It’s part of funding a civil society."
Someone touched on this in one of the other threads, but felt it was a good discussion to have on its own about public financing for Lebreton. I haven't been to a library or on a bus since the early 80s. Museums? Maybe once every few years?
"I would throw in one other factor. In the spring of 2019, the $2.1-billion LRT system is to open, with stations at Pimisi and Bayview, and a lot of nothing in between. Can no reasonable case be mounted that it requires public financing to make something happen there?
But we’ve never really had the debate, have we? (It would have been useful, and certainly fun, to have had a referendum on this question in the October municipal election, but alas, the idea had no champion. The city spent $3.5 billion in 2018 — would we even notice $50 million thrown at a civic arena?)"
True, if the mayor was maybe trying to do something on his end, financially, to help both sides to cooperate on the Lebreton partnership, maybe a question added to the ballot box would have been a great idea. I am willing to bet it would have been a resounding "no", but framed in a certain way, it might have been palatable to many in the city.
"The point is, there is another way to view the proposition of a publicly supported arena than “Senior on Fixed Income Forced to Help Pay Bobby Ryan’s Salary.”
This is something that many would have a hard time rationalizing.
I have to admit, his article did sway me towards the fact that perhaps the mayor could have done more on a crucial and probably the most valuable piece of property in all the land.
(Yes I know this will never happen)
