Better than nothing is no recommendation

In discussing prospects for redevelopment of Lansdowne Park, I often hear the comment that we should go along with the Lansdowne Live proposal because the alternative is doing nothing.

I have stated many times that we should be looking at various ways to address the redevelopment of Lansdowne. If that examination shows that the Lansdowne Live proposal is the best alternative, we should select it and proceed.

But we have not considered alternatives. We haven't even considered the outline of what we want to do.

For example, we have not had a real debate about the City's need for an outdoor stadium. Some don't think we need one; others think that a stadium should be first on the list of things the City should work on.

Even Mayor O'Brien, who I think is a cheerleader for the Lansdowne Live proposed partnership, seems to think that other things such as flooding in Kanata, dumping sewage in the Ottawa River and public transit are more important issues than a stadium project.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say that an open-air stadium in Lansdowne Park is the city's number one priority. (I doubt that this is the case, but this is just to get you thinking.)

One possibility is that the City could offer to sell Frank Clair Stadium and the Civic Centre. If running such facilities is a paying proposition, maybe someone would be willing to purchase the lot. I believe that in Toronto the former SkyDome was sold to private interests (at a great loss) but presumably it is no longer a drain on the public purse.

But you say, no one in their right mind would buy the Stadium and Civic Centre with a hope of making money. Professional sports teams cannot pay rent at a level which would make ownership of the facilities profitable.

If it is true that a stadium and arena must be run at a loss, we need to consider whether taxpayers should subsidize professional sports and, if they should, at what level and how. Maybe the City could simply pay an annual subsidy to the new football team. This would be transparent and understandable. Revenue raised by the team plus the city subsidy might make it possible for the team to pay a rent which would make a stadium viable. The other possibility is that the city pay a subsidy to the stadium owners rather than to the team which is the principal tenant of the stadium.

Another possibility is that the city retain ownership of the stadium and civic centre but sell other parts of Lansdowne Park to raise money. The cash could be used to fix up the stadium and civic centre.

But if having an open-air stadium is such a big priority for the city, it appears that we have the resources to pay for it. The current partnership proposal calls for the City to ante up 129.3 million dollars at the outset. Either we have this money or we do not.

Of course there is also the possibility that an open-air stadium is not a priority for the city. We could use our 129.3 million dollars for some other purpose.