Following is a copy of a message I sent to Ottawa city councillors on the subject of the future of Lansdowne Park. I sent the message on Sunday, ahead of the Monday, April 20, 2009 public hearings. So far I have received responses from two councillors endorsing my position.
Members of Ottawa City Council,
I am writing regarding Monday's meeting on the future of Lansdowne Park. Unfortunately I am unable to attend in person, but have some views I would like you all to hear.
These views concern:
- city finances and associated risks,
- the viability of professional sports franchises in the City of Ottawa,
- stadium locations, and
- suitable uses for Lansdowne Park.
Firstly, the city does not have a viable track record sustaining and supporting professional sports teams, one exception being the Ottawa Senators NHL franchise. The professional football franchise has failed twice and baseball teams have also failed twice at the Coventry Road stadium location. Why then should the city take on any risk associated with a third try at sustaining a CFL franchise or a soccer franchise? With regard to professional football, notwithstanding the viability of a local franchise, the long term viability of the CFL itself is questionable. With regard to soccer, while amateur soccer participation is growing, long term viability of a professional franchise in Ottawa still needs to be proven. Football and soccer franchises combining under one roof might do something to minimize the risk if one or the other should fail. Failure of both would be a disaster.
All risk associated with the proposed enterprise should therefore be taken on by the consortia submitting proposals. If investment of any magnitude is needed it should come from private investors, not the tax paying citizens of Ottawa. Any city involvement in such an enterprise should be limited to providing a suitable stadium location at reasonable lease or purchase conditions. Financing of stadium construction and management is entirely a private sector responsibility. Clearly private sector money will only become available if the sports franchise is viable in the long term.
With regard to stadium locations, Lansdowne is unsuitable as it is not effectively supported by public (mass) transit, neither is it supported within the local community. Any site considered should be served by transit within the planned timeframe that a stadium is constructed. It should also be respectful of neighborhood concerns, something that this council seems to be incapable of addressing. Council might wish to place other condition regarding the long term location of a sports stadium within the core of the city.
With regard to future uses for Lansdowne Park, to date no concrete plans for the location, other than the work done by the Lansdowne Live consortium has been undertaken. Efforts to initiate serious planning and design studies have been thwarted and delayed. Serious planning work must be initiated. I do not see time as an issue because the city has many higher priority issues that need financing for the next several years. In the short term the integrity of existing infrastructure must be preserved, pending any final decisions on the site. The Civic Centre itself needs to be preserved and upgraded as it serves the Ottawa 67s franchise effectively and many exhibitions are held there. New uses for the park area, including the Farmers' Market that will be of increasing importance in the future are also emerging. Clearly there is a lot of work to do but entertaining the Lansdowne live proposal is not a solution.
Regards,
Colin Hine
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
First Open house for the proposed Hospital Link/Cumberland Corridor study
It is reported that the first open house for the "Hospital Link/Cumberland Corridor study" will take place on Wed. April 29th, 18:00-21:00 at Ellwood Hall in the Jim Durrell Rec. Centre on Walkley Road. There is no confirmation of this on the City of Ottawa web site with less than 2 weeks to go before the event. Very strange!
These meetings will provide some of very few limited opportunities to challenge the planned Browning corridor being used as a transitway. This is an alert to everyone who would like to be heard on the matter.
These meetings will provide some of very few limited opportunities to challenge the planned Browning corridor being used as a transitway. This is an alert to everyone who would like to be heard on the matter.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Deja vu all over again
The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) ruling of the proposed Minto subdivision in Manotick (OMB ruling outrages village residents, Maria Cook, Ottawa Citizen, April 11, 2009) reminded me of a similar ruling by the Ontario Minister of the Environment with regard to the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor (AVTC).
With regard to Minto’s Mahogany subdivision, Brian Tansley, president of Manotick West community association, notes "Disappointed would be an understatement, we lost big time. Every single point that we raised was ruled down…The primary disappointment is the lack of justification for the ruling. In a legal document there's references to prior rulings to provide rationale for decisions. There were none of those.”
In the AVTC case many community groups, spearheaded by Citizens for Healthy Communities (CHC) and the Sierra club of Canada worked for many years to highlight environmental, induced traffic, economic, public transit and other community concerns surrounding the proposed development. Despite this, the minister ruled down every single point raised by the community.
These are two examples of governments, municipal and provincial, failing to treat community concerns seriously. In both cases public concerns were simply discounted in the interests of developers.
With regard to Minto’s Mahogany subdivision, Brian Tansley, president of Manotick West community association, notes "Disappointed would be an understatement, we lost big time. Every single point that we raised was ruled down…The primary disappointment is the lack of justification for the ruling. In a legal document there's references to prior rulings to provide rationale for decisions. There were none of those.”
In the AVTC case many community groups, spearheaded by Citizens for Healthy Communities (CHC) and the Sierra club of Canada worked for many years to highlight environmental, induced traffic, economic, public transit and other community concerns surrounding the proposed development. Despite this, the minister ruled down every single point raised by the community.
These are two examples of governments, municipal and provincial, failing to treat community concerns seriously. In both cases public concerns were simply discounted in the interests of developers.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Ottawa Citizen - letter to the editor
I sent the following letter to the citizen.
An article in today’s Ottawa Citizen (Mayor called on ethics over show, Jake Rupert, March 31, 2009) addresses the possible conflict of interest resulting from Mayor Larry O’Brien’s support of the CANSEC 2009 defence industry trade show at Lansdowne Park because of his relationship with Calian Technologies Ltd. At the heart of this is the debate regarding the ethics of using City of Ottawa facilities to promote and market defence industry products and capabilities.
I worked in the defence industry sector for most of my career and felt privileged to work on many exciting state-of-the-art project initiatives. The technology is evermore fascinating and one can easily be blinded to the dehumanizing consequences of using sophisticated systems and weaponry in warfare. Over time I have come to realize that the application of war and military solutions to conflicts is, in most cases, no solution at all and that alternative measures involving peacekeeping, development and diplomacy offer preferred paths.
Social changes do not happen overnight however, so for the foreseeable future wars will continue to be fought and military systems and weapons will continue to be needed. Nonetheless steps can be taken to reduce the glorification of war and warlike activities as well as the promotion of defence procurement activities in public arenas.
Whilst trade show access might not be open to the public, there is inevitably a lot of press surrounding these events and contractors advertise their products and capabilities extensively in public. Unlike other types of government procurement, products being acquired for defence/military purposes are not sold to the general public. So why promote them publicly? Defence contractors’ marketing and sales efforts should be directed to government procurement groups outside of the public domain.
Going further, why the need for military air shows and military flying displays, for example the Snowbirds? Attractive as these events might be to the public, they help promote the acceptability of military solutions and the interests of defence industry suppliers. Do defence contractors really require use of such arenas to sell their wares to governments and the military?
Defence trade show ethics
An article in today’s Ottawa Citizen (Mayor called on ethics over show, Jake Rupert, March 31, 2009) addresses the possible conflict of interest resulting from Mayor Larry O’Brien’s support of the CANSEC 2009 defence industry trade show at Lansdowne Park because of his relationship with Calian Technologies Ltd. At the heart of this is the debate regarding the ethics of using City of Ottawa facilities to promote and market defence industry products and capabilities.
I worked in the defence industry sector for most of my career and felt privileged to work on many exciting state-of-the-art project initiatives. The technology is evermore fascinating and one can easily be blinded to the dehumanizing consequences of using sophisticated systems and weaponry in warfare. Over time I have come to realize that the application of war and military solutions to conflicts is, in most cases, no solution at all and that alternative measures involving peacekeeping, development and diplomacy offer preferred paths.
Social changes do not happen overnight however, so for the foreseeable future wars will continue to be fought and military systems and weapons will continue to be needed. Nonetheless steps can be taken to reduce the glorification of war and warlike activities as well as the promotion of defence procurement activities in public arenas.
Whilst trade show access might not be open to the public, there is inevitably a lot of press surrounding these events and contractors advertise their products and capabilities extensively in public. Unlike other types of government procurement, products being acquired for defence/military purposes are not sold to the general public. So why promote them publicly? Defence contractors’ marketing and sales efforts should be directed to government procurement groups outside of the public domain.
Going further, why the need for military air shows and military flying displays, for example the Snowbirds? Attractive as these events might be to the public, they help promote the acceptability of military solutions and the interests of defence industry suppliers. Do defence contractors really require use of such arenas to sell their wares to governments and the military?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
