Ottawa Sun
Published: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 The answers are already known Monday's joint meeting of the planning and corporate services committees was supposed to shed some light on the competing stadium proposals. Sadly, the staff report and ensuing council debate only darkened things further. And judging from their quotes and body language, both Roger Greenberg, CEO of Minto and one of the Lansdowne Live principals, and Cyril Leeder, Senators Sports & Entertainment COO and right-hand man for Eugene Melnyk's Kanata stadium and MLS soccer proposal left the meeting disappointed. To recap, staff rated the Lansdowne Live proposal in the 80 points range and the Scotiabank Place stadium/entertainment complex concept in the 70 points range. Fair enough. In this space I've already made my preference known and it tilts toward MLS soccer and the Melnyk plan as opposed to Lansdowne Live, despite its merits and the quartet of reputable community builders involved. Instead of receiving an indication from our city as to what's next, the staff report proposes to ask other levels of government questions -- which only serves to pass the buck -- for which the answers are already known. As the feds have stated, if you believe an outdoor stadium is a priority (be it at Lansdowne or in Kanata), add it to your list of asks for transit, roads, etc., and send us your list. In the questions and debate that followed the staff report, Coun. Alex Cullen noted that a new stadium is an exercise in city building. Yes it could be, but only if council decides to say yes ... to something, anything. Coun. Rainer Bloess expressed his skepticism about the current fad of urban renewal projects all centred on stadiums. And yes, the history of these types of projects is replete with when-pigs-fly economic impact multipliers. But both stadium projections, from what I've read, are defensible and conservative. Coun. Maria McRae wins the bottom line comment of the month award for her incisive questioning of city manager Kent Kirkpatrick. She quickly seized upon the holes in the staff analysis and summarized the choice before council. Choose $100 million (give or take a few million) in amortized costs for Lansdowne or $100 million of tri-partite funding and Melnyk's own coin for Kanata, or say no to both proponents and then sometime in the future, build a new complex somewhere else for an estimated $185 million at a minimum. A new complex, if I may add, without a credible ownership group behind it, without a professional sports franchise as an anchor tenant and without the necessary mixed-use living and retail development over the long run to make it viable. Coun. Diane Deans reminded her colleagues of the political scars she has from the old City of Ottawa council that walked this road a decade ago. She poignantly noted the community overwhelmingly spoke out against any private development at Lansdowne. And beware, this hornet's nest could be stirred up again quickly. What was missing from Monday's meeting was any talk of the long-term economic benefits each proposal brings to the city. Absent as well was discussion of how the city can best align with federal and provincial mandates to use "stimulus" funding for actual "stimulus" projects. Finally, instead of being thanked for their initiative, both proponents have been subjected to a convoluted process and maligned as door-to-door polyester suit salesmen. On April 20 the public -- including the stadium proponents -- will have a chance to clarify or, more likely, refute elements of the staff report and make their case before most councillors. It should be an interesting meeting. |