Arena: let’s agree to disagree and move on
I know a lot of friends and supporters have questions about my vote yesterday. Perspective would vary in part depending on what people think we were voting on.
The actual motion was to endorse a design concept and approve a very specific updated framework to fund and lease out the arena. It is more or less the same arrangement that I voted against in 2011.
But politically, that wasn’t the way the vote was framed at all – the question it came down to was more or less, do you support downtown Edmonton?
I hope that in time the two questions can be separated, and that my support and advocacy for downtown can speak for itself. (And that support for buying the land, the zoning, and the CRL mechanism to enable a suite of Downtown catalysts including the arena, will be seen as constructive.)
My main issue, and I’ve addressed this in greater detail previously, remains with the economics of professional sports and the degree of subsidy (usually indirect, in the form of tax concessions, reduced rent, control of all other revenues, etc) they require of their host municipalities. I know we weren’t going to fix that with this deal but the phenomenon still doesn’t sit well with me, and that’s just a matter of principle.
I know I could have said “the economics of this deal still give me pause, but I’m going to support it because we need to move Edmonton ahead.” That would have been the politically astute thing to do, as I alluded to yesterday. But that would be walking away from a strongly held principle, and in the end I just couldn’t fold on it.
I might have been able to support it if the terms had shifted significantly, for example to include a larger user-pay component and, ideally, less borrowing on our books. I was really hoping we might get there after hitting the reset button in October.
I don’t begrudge my colleagues for having a different view. And I don’t begrudge the Oilers or their owner for trying to get the best deal they can.
In fact, and I said this yesterday too, it probably is about the best deal the City could get under the circumstances. It’s still the circumstances I have a problem with. Let’s all agree to disagree and move on. I will do my best to be positive and support the will of Council.
So, from here on out our specific focus should be on ensuring it delivers on all it promises to do for downtown. I can get behind that and continue to move ahead constructively.
16 thoughts on “Arena: let’s agree to disagree and move on”
Comments are closed.
Like you, Don, I have had huge reservations about this financial arrangement and the lack of due diligence by most of City Council, so yesterday’s decision was tough to swallow. This is not the end of the arena issue, but it is the conclusion of a painfully awkward phase.
I am looking forward to moving beyond “the Arena” dominating the discussion about the future of Edmonton. We have a lot to be proud of and there is a lot of positive work that still needs to be done in this city. Let’s get it done.
I absolutely agree with you. Yours is a well thought out argument–no one can nor should deny you for voting on principle.
I don’t understand why the NHL doesn’t kick money in (or if this is indeed true)…I know teams are privately owned, but the NHL makes money from them, they should put in their share of the cost too.
I also believe that we as a city should not be so desperate as to roll over for just any deal, however economically unfair…(Will the city also pay more for a new Royal Alberta Museum??)
Don, the revised deal is much worse than the one negotiated in October 2011.
Under the revised deal, the City – not the Katz Group – is responsible for major capital maintenance. So if and when the ice plant, the scoreboard, the escalators, the HVAC, the stainless steel cladding etc. need repairs or replacement, the taxpayers are the ones on the hook.
Under the revised deal, monies will not only have to be borrowed to cover the City’s share of the arena costs, but Katz’s contribution as well including his cost for the so-called wintergarden.
The revised deal caps the Katz Group’s property tax contribution at $250,000/year for the entire 35 year duration. And from that $250,000 the KG can deduct any property taxes paid by any other commercial tenants in the arena.
In the case of default, the Katz Group has the option to enter into a new lease consistent with the existing Rexall Place lease. Under this existing lease, the Oilers pay $1 per year.
While I’m glad you voted against this deal, this does not excuse the failure of Council to do its due diligence by voting for a substantially revised framework that they – like all Edmontonians – did not have an opportunity to understand the full implications of beforehand.
I agree, one should be able to support downtown without necessarily supporting a downtown arena. However, I’m not sure the two are ever going to become unlinked. Instead, I hope the arena dominates the downtown discussion a little less and comes to be seen for what it is – just a part of the puzzle (albeit an expensive one).
I admire your stance Don. It was a difficult one to take, but completely understandable. It’s a frustrating position to be in to work for so long on a deal only to realize just how little flexibility the current NHL structure actually allows. Everyone wants to see a successful downtown. Now it is simply a matter of making the best of what is before us.
Thank you Don for your principled and gutsy vote on the downtown arena. I would suspect the project will go considerably over budget with Joe Public picking up the tab. Yeeks. If the arena is really going to make a difference, we need to have far more efficient public transportation. The LRT must have free parking at suburban stations and much more direct feeder bus service. Good luck on the next phase.
You made the correct decision ! Given the Premier’s TV address last night and her comments on CTV this morning concerning spending, your decision was well thought out, astute and timely. With loss of funding to kintergarden, Little Warriors, and reduction of nurses in long term care, how can $114 Million be justified by the province towards millionaires playing hockey. You have many supporters on the decision you took.
I agree, Don, that when this deal is finally a done deal, it will be time to agree to disagree and move on. It’s not a done deal and I’m not, as yet, prepared to move on. Perhaps when there are actually shovels in the ground.
Significant questions about this deal have been raised and completely ignored, not the least of which is that taxpayers will be footing the bill for many years before enough of the projected development is realized to cover the cost of the debt. That could take 10 years or, in fact, it might never happen. Council has been dishonest with citizens about this.
The fact that much-needed infrastructure projects will be jeopardized if council uses MSI money to fund the arena is an ongoing concern and I don’t think citizens rolling over and allowing that to happen is in our best interests. When the city puts neighbourhood renewal projects on hold, you can be darned sure I will remind people why it is happening.
We have an election this year and I will use every ounce of my energy to remind voters what went down in this deal, particularly those voters in wards (like mine) where the council went on record as being opposed to the deal prior to the last election and then changed their votes with no explanation whatsoever. When those members of council are unseated, I will feel some sort of satisfaction that citizens finally had their say.
Don
Your thinking is rational. Your stand is justified. You have a lot of supporters out here!
It bothers me that the Mayor and some of the other Councilors seem to only be concerned with the costs of the project and not where all the needed financing will come from. It looks like a lot of the capital, in addition to the $114 Million, is risky and not in hand. I fear the City taxpayer could end up with a very big debt load when it is all said and done.
Don, the NHL is what it is, and trying to change it from where you sit (essentially without even attempting to coordinate an organisation of NHL’s Cities’ Councils to help) is, er, noble.
But would the NHL remain in Edmonton with Rexall Place as it is through the next recession?
No.
Can Edmonton compete well on lifestyle with the bigger cities without a vibrant downtown, or an NHL franchise, for the people who have a choice of where they live?
Not well, no.
You mince words well to suggest that you either support or detract depending on the person reading, but downtown is indeed a worthy cause, and this arena is indeed an important part of the antidote.
Mouthing the framing that this is “subsidy” and not infrastructure, when we provide ring roads costing 30 times the arena on carless people’s taxes is purely hypocritical.
Don,
I would have agreed with you in principle on voting No on the fact alone that the item was reintroduced in the morning and the vote held in the afternoon. That bothers me, and no matter how much it was debated ‘in the past’, several months still had passed, and I would have hoped more than a few hours of lip service would be done for something that would cost the city over $100 million.
That aside, I agree with you that the economics were not the best. What particularly galls me is that the Katz Group was not required to fully open its books.
Don, you stated your case elequently, reasonably and intelligently. Congratulations on sticking to your principles.
I won’t move on until after the election, and I sincerely hope that every member of council who voted for the arena loses. It’s called accountability. Until the public votes for or against a motion (or those that supported it) we can not move on.