Hot Topics

Arena Debate

The exploration of building a new arena in Edmonton has been riddled with challenges. From the onset, proponents of the plan advanced the arena as the necessary stimulus for the city's stagnant downtown. They argue that such a facility, when anchored by a variety of other developments both arena-related (like sports bars and restaurants) and residential and business, would garner more revenue dollars annually and contribute to Council’s pledge to densify.

Now the Oilers owner's inability to advance his $100 million commitment to the project (or comparable collaterals or guarantees) accompanied by the provincial government's denial of $100 million of additional funding (except for Council directed MSI) means the city is short half the funding for the project.

Another key flaw has been the inability to answer what becomes of Northlands and the current city-owned arena, Rexall Place.

The city has been in the process of negotiating this deal for almost two years. One would think that if the process has not achieved its main deliverables by the end of 2011, it makes no sense to continue to spend scarce resources on a project that is more a dream than reality.

Reflection on Arena Debate

The arena project was a prevalent topic in Edmonton during 2011. Council weighed many options for a new downtown development, and has collectively made the decision to move forward. The agreed upon framework, one which I voted against, now sees the City—no matter if it's divided into CRLs, parking revenue, or other projections—committed to $125 million, $100 million over the course of 30 years paid by the Katz group, $125 million from a ticket tax, and an additional $100 million from the public sector still outstanding. Throughout this whole process, my concern has been the best interests of Edmontonians and fair use of their tax dollars. It is my belief that a great number of citizens share my concerns about the nature of the current deal.

I am not dismissive of the assertion that an arena district could be beneficial for downtown. However, I do not share the same seemingly unquestioning belief that this particular deal is the one miracle solution our downtown’s revitalization requires. Research on sports venues' economic benefit to their surrounding area has largely been unable to reach any positive conclusions. I believe we should be thoughtful and realistic in our rhetoric.

Government is tasked with being trustworthy stewards of the public's money. Our job is to provide services or benefits that improve citizens' quality of life that they would have difficulty providing for themselves. The deal the City has made with the Katz Group does not provide tangible benefit to a majority of our city's citizens. I believe a major public investment should stipulate communal benefit as a requirement.

A rough estimation of what a larger arena could mean for the Oilers' revenue in comparison to the current capacity of Rexall predicts an additional $300-$400 million over the course of the 35-year location agreement. The Katz Group, although paying for operating costs, are also positioned to take in all the extra income too. It is the Group's right as a private entity to pursue its own interests and increase revenue for its businesses. However, and I cannot stress this enough, it is not within the City's rights or responsibility to its constituents to subsidize the capital investment of a new revenue-generator for a private company. The City “owning” the property at the end of 35 years amounts to little more than a long-term debt and lost tax revenue in this case.

Thirty-five years is a long time for any person, not to mention for governments, corporations and professional sports teams. There is no certainty that for the life of this deal, the Katz Group, the Oilers or even the NHL, will even exist, much less have the ability to pay the money they have committed to this project. The City is responsible for at least $200 million upfront—once land and infrastructure upgrades are added. With $100 million still outstanding, the public costs will likely rise further still. I do not believe that an investment of this nature and of this magnitude honours the trust taxpayers impart to their elected representatives.

Thank you to those who have expressed their concerns so far. I encourage you to continue to make your voice heard as this contentious issue moves forward in 2012.

Sincerely,

Linda Sloan

Jasper Place Revitalization

Over five years ago, the City initiated a dialogue in the communities of West Jasper Place, Brittania Youngstown, Glenwood and Canora about what the communities felt they needed to grow and prosper. Longstanding issues with crime and social issues, accompanied by aging civic infrastructure, made the revitalization an exciting prospect for local citizens and many engaged in the work to contribute their ideas.

Long after the Jasper Place Revitalization Plan was approved by City Council, much of the work remains unfunded and incomplete. This is not for lack of community engagement. Rather, during the conceptual planning stages, the west LRT route (previously recommended for 82 Avenue) was redefined by Council to go directly west on Stony Plain Road heading south on 156 Street and then west along 87 Ave. to West Edmonton Mall. This resulted in a great deal of debate, including how car traffic would flow to downtown, what benefits the community would derive from the construction, how businesses would cope and how increased density would impact the historic character of the area.

There is, to date, no defined or proposed funding source to build the west LRT. Until such time as the project is funded, it would be premature in my mind to impose Transit Orientated Guidelines or dispel historic commitments like the Newman resolution.