[TOareaFan]

I have no problem with funding the Opera House, or the ROM, etc. In fact, I am rather ashamed that it took us how many years to argue endlessly, ditch multiple plans and finally build that house - and build it on the cheap we did.

AoD

I probably agree with you on that in isolation....I just have never understood why paying 1/3rd the cost of a 2k seat opera house is so easily accepted by the public but contributing anything to the cost of sporting facilities seems so obscene to so many.

I only used the Opera house as an example because it was going on around the same time as the Air Canada Centre which had a completely different treatment over publicly owned land.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I probably agree with you on that in isolation....I just have never understood why paying 1/3rd the cost of a 2k seat opera house is so easily accepted by the public but contributing anything to the cost of sporting facilities seems so obscene to so many.

I only used the Opera house as an example because it was going on around the same time as the Air Canada Centre which had a completely different treatment over publicly owned land.

To be fair, it wasn't easily accepted by the public or government at the time. In fact, there was a rather convoluted dance between the Feds and the province over it (rather famous story of Harris temporarily killed the project by taking back the site over some spat, which was eventually donated). Now that it's a fait accompli, no one would of course think twice about that (even though the site is quite limiting in the long term)

As to ACC, it was funded privately - but the business case for it is such that no public funds are needed. If that model works, so be it - but that's popular professional sports that is in a position to make money and fund its' own infrastructure, and it isn't a public space that is under government control either.

AoD

 

[TOareaFan]

To be fair, it wasn't easily accepted by the public or government at the time. In fact, there was a rather convoluted dance between the Feds and the province over it. Now that it's a fait accompli, no one would of course think twice about that.

As to ACC, it was funded privately - but the business case for it is such that no public funds are needed. If that model works, so be it - but that's popular professional sports that is in a position to make money and fund its' own infrastructure.

AoD

Was speaking, specifically, over that strip of publicly (city) owned land (forget how large it was but it was a "strip") that had zero value before the ACC and was needed to complete the project. MLSE (well, at the time the Raptors) asked for it to be donated/contributed to the project but the city got it appraised in the context of the project and, magically, it was valued at $1million.....so the city struck a deal that the land would be exchanged for permanent use of a box at the arena which would be used by the city to support community groups.

Now, Karma has a way of biting you back and that box later became controversial as it was thought to be being mis-used and eventually the city surrendered the box.

As you know, setting aside the "pro sports" aspect of things, the ACC ended up being a pretty important project in the city that has played a large part in the creation of the south core area...but a piece of land dubiously valued at $1 mil could not be contributed......an opera house, though, sure 1.7 acres at Bay and Queen....yep give it away.

Like I have said, I like and support the arts....I just don't get how we can treat them so differently than sports/athletics....it kinda reeks of "arts are for the elites making the decisions about these things....sports is for the masses".

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Was speaking, specifically, over that strip of publicly (city) owned land (forget how large it was but it was a "strip") that had zero value before the ACC and was needed to complete the project. MLSE (well, at the time the Raptors) asked for it to be donated/contributed to the project but the city got it appraised in the context of the project and, magically, it was valued at $1million.....so the city struck a deal that the land would be exchanged for permanent use of a box at the arena which would be used by the city to support community groups.

Now, Karma has a way of biting you back and that box later became controversial as it was thought to be being mis-used and eventually the city surrendered the box.

As you know, setting aside the "pro sports" aspect of things, the ACC ended up being a pretty important project in the city that has played a large part in the creation of the south core area...but a piece of land dubiously valued at $1 mil could not be contributed......an opera house, though, sure 1.7 acres at Bay and Queen....yep give it away.

Like I have said, I like and support the arts....I just don't get how we can treat them so differently than sports/athletics....it kinda reeks of "arts are for the elites making the decisions about these things....sports is for the masses".

The city approval episode was of course an attempt to wring concessions for the sake of optics - I would have rather see them focus on improving the quality of the public realm instead. But that's of course just me.

I think the key is assessing the means of the organizations - you don't make money as an opera company or high-performance athletics; you do with professional sports. Government support should be on the basis of need in this case. Keep in mind too ACC was at the height of Common Sense Rev. and the post-SkyDome era, where the appetite for any public spending is at a minimum.

AoD

 

[TOareaFan]

The city approval episode was of course an attempt to wring concessions for the sake of optics - I would have rather see them focus on improving the quality of the public realm instead. But that's of course just me.

I think the key is assessing the means of the organizations - you don't make money as an opera company or high-performance athletics; you do with professional sports. Government support should be on the basis of need in this case. Keep in mind too ACC was at the height of Common Sense Rev. and the post-SkyDome era, where the appetite for any non arts public spending is at a minimum.

AoD

I think you and I more agree than disagree on this....but since Four Seasons (and other arts facilities) were seeking funds at the very same time....I felt compelled to fix your post a bit

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think you and I more agree than disagree on this....but since Four Seasons (and other arts facilities) were seeking funds at the very same time....I felt compelled to fix your post a bit

Oh we do. As to the timing - not quite the same, ACC was mid-90s, the big 6 was around early 2000 - in fact I think Ernie Eves was the premier by the time the funding announcements were made. Public attitudes and political environment had shifted already. The interesting bit about the Opera House proposal at Bay and Wellesley in the 80s was how it got burned (unlike SkyDome, which started construction in the mid-80s) because it got on the train late (along with having an excessive reach) and hit the tail end of the Peterson government, and Rae killed it, partly because it is perceived as "elitist".

AoD

 

[TOareaFan]

Oh we do. As to the timing - not quite the same, ACC was mid-90s, the big 6 was around early 2000 - in fact I think Ernie Eves was the premier by the time the funding announcements were made. Public attitudes and political environment had shifted already.

AoD

sure...land was donated to Four Seasons in 2001 ACC broke ground in 1997....but all "post SkyDome era". Let's move on, as I said, I think we are largely agreeing on the macro issue.....if not the details.

 

[Admiral Beez]

All I can say it thank jebus we didn't bid or even worse win the event. Can you imagine spending the next nine years whinging and whining about every project, expense, scandal, etc....

Instead let's stop the circuses and focus on building the city for its residents.

 

[Tewder]

London's bid started in 2003, more than 10 years ago. The Olympics actually made it less democratic, as people who actually live there have said many times. What has been the trend since 2003, especially the last few years? Cities walking away.

Could you possibly distort this anymore to try and prove an erroneous point? Let's see, what is the trend in the past 6 months in the imaginary world in my mind? You might just get it right then...

Look, I posted several links upthread that show that the vast majority of the public in London, Vancouver and Sydney believe the cost of the games to be worth it, found the games to have positive effects, and would host again. Please stop spreading lies.

LOL if you think the Olympics isn't run by special interest groups! Didn't you notice that Tory did not do ONE bit of public consultation in this last go-around? That sound democratic to you?

'Um, didn't you hear? Tory decided not to bid!! I know that you and animatronic like to titillate yourselves with conspiracy theories but it's no secret that Tory consulted with the business community, potential stake holders, upper levels of government, the COC and city council members (you know, those dudes and dudettes who are democratically elected?)... I'm sorry if he didn't call you personally to seek your clearly objective and open-minded opinion but I think our democracy will survive another day.

WT was funded due to the 2008 Olympics? Link? Evidence?

Come on Riverdale, this has been discussed ad nauseam. I've posted links, one that you admittedly found compelling, that explain how the failed 2008 bid along with winning the PanAms generated many development plans and ideas, achieved funding for them, kick-started them into action, and finished them to a timeline. Why do people have such an obstinate tin ear to this??

 

[animatronic]

Could you possibly distort this anymore to try and prove an erroneous point? Let's see, what is the trend in the past 6 months in the imaginary world in my mind? You might just get it right then...

Look, I posted several links upthread that show that the vast majority of the public in London, Vancouver and Sydney believe the cost of the games to be worth it, found the games to have positive effects, and would host again. Please stop spreading lies.




'Um, didn't you hear? Tory decided not to bid!! I know that you and animatronic like to titillate yourselves with conspiracy theories but it's no secret that Tory consulted with the business community, potential stake holders, upper levels of government, the COC and city council members (you know, those dudes and dudettes who are democratically elected?)... I'm sorry if he didn't call you personally to seek your clearly objective and open-minded opinion but I think our democracy will survive another day.



Come on Riverdale, this has been discussed ad nauseam. I've posted links, one that you admittedly found compelling, that explain how the failed 2008 bid along with winning the PanAms generated many development plans and ideas, achieved funding for them, kick-started them into action, and finished them to a timeline. Why do people have such an obstinate tin ear to this??

Tory should fire his advisors. Bidding was a stupid idea and he got bad advice from both the back room and his team on the ground.

Tory was a yes on Sunday night and what tipped him over was a call w Bach where he was told that an expression of interest wasn't good enough - something we've been saying on the board for almost two months.

Tory almost stepped on a land mine and he knows it. He also made Ford sound rational and that's the last thing he wants to do. Hopefully Tory learns from this and gets his shit together.

 

[TheKingEast]

Thank God!

 

[TOareaFan]

Tory should fire his advisors. Bidding was a stupid idea and he got bad advice from both the back room and his team on the ground.

Tory was a yes on Sunday night and what tipped him over was a call w Bach where he was told that an expression of interest wasn't good enough - something we've been saying on the board for almost two months.

Tory almost stepped on a land mine and he knows it. He also made Ford sound rational and that's the last thing he wants to do. Hopefully Tory learns from this and gets his shit together.

Bidding was a stupid idea...he (and presumably his advisors) decided against bidding......so they (the advisors) should be fired?

 

[animatronic]

Bidding was a stupid idea...he (and presumably his advisors) decided against bidding......so they (the advisors) should be fired?

Looks like a combination of back room backers (Richardson, Peterson, Pritchard et all) acting in their own best interests and not Tory's, plus an office team that didn't bother to read the bid docs and who it turns out - contrary to any reasonable expectation - didn't bother getting council on board. Haven't heard anything conclusive but it sounds like he went against his team by saying no.

This was almost another religious schools debacle - so he'd better fix the team before it happens again.

 

[wopchop]

How is a stadium an "important civic infrastructure" in one city (33K seating in a city of 200K, at that, publicly funded to the tune of 2/3, remaining 1/3 to be covered by a loan from the province to be recouped through tickets, with project risk borne by the public) and not in another with what, 12x the population (30x regionally)?

AoD

Because the Saskatchewan Roughriders, who play at home in Regina, are a "community owned team". The public can buy a limited amount of shares into the team (to prevent one person from taking over too many shares) but the shareholders do not receive dividends, as team profits are re-invested into the team or stadium. Instead, the shareholders get to vote on team management and perks like merchandise discounts and preferred parking. So, while not owned by the city or province, they are primarily owned by locals, and you could probably make a decent argument that the stadium is an important civic infrastructure.

Normally I don't support public funding of these kind of things, as it gets ridiculous, but I think that the deal in Regina ain't half bad. I believe that the City of Regina takes a cut of the profits as rent for use of the stadium. From what I remember, the biggest portion of the budget for their new stadium (at least a third of the total value) was a loan taken out against future ticket sales.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Because the Saskatchewan Roughriders, who play at home in Regina, are a "community owned team". The public can buy a limited amount of shares into the team (to prevent one person from taking over too many shares) but the shareholders do not receive dividends, as team profits are re-invested into the team or stadium. Instead, the shareholders get to vote on team management and perks like merchandise discounts and preferred parking. So, while not owned by the city or province, they are primarily owned by locals, and you could probably make a decent argument that the stadium is an important civic infrastructure. I believe that the City of Regina takes a cut of the profits as rent for use of the stadium.

Yes I understand the part about a publicly owned CFL team - what I am questioning is the argument that somehow it represents an important civic infrastructure given the size of the population, and whether it is all that different from say Toronto paying for an athletics stadium that reflects the its' size. If this venture is all that profitable for Regina, it wouldn't have required 2/3 funding from the public and 1/3 guaranteed by the province as a loan.

AoD