Councillor Chiarelli and innovative accounting

In todays "Metro" Councillor Rick Chiarelli is quoted as saying that Ottawa has three possible choices with respect to the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park. He defines the choices as:
1. buy into the Lansdowne Live proposal by OSEG
2. let the stadium rot and spend $4 million per year for the arena and salons
3. tear down the stadium and civic centre and install a lawn for $40 million with the option to build a stadium elsewhere for $200 million.

The Councillor then argues that going with the OSEG proposal will cost nothing because the debt will be paid by a portion of the city's revenue from the commercial development in the proposed partnership.

In fact there are many other possibilities than those suggested by the Councillor. Moreover the way that the financial arrangements have been described is simply incorrect.

First consider other possibilities.

Instead of maximizing the investment in the stadium, exposing the greatest investment to a risky proposition, it would be possible to address the real safety issues of the stadium and civic centre for a smaller amount of money, do appropriate minor renovations and get a team on the field quickly. With less investment at stake, it would be possible to see whether pro football succeeds, and if the transport and other problems associated with the use of the stadium can be resolved. Assuming football is a success and the transportation issues are overcome, we could then go on to undertake a series of upgrades of the stadium (and civic centre).

Another possibility would be that we do the minimal work on the stadium to get a team on the field and we discover that the transportation issues really are serious. Because we have not invested such a great sum in Lansdowne, it would then be possible to consider a stadium at another location.

Obviously there are many other alternative ways of redeveloping Lansdowne Park, including selling part of the property, rather than engaging in the complex lease arrangement for 30-50-70 years.

Turning to the discussion of financing, it is here that we discover that Councillor Chiarelli is totally out of his depth.

Even if you accept the dubious proposition of dedicating property tax revenue from the commercial development to carry the cost of the debt incurred in upgrading the stadium and civic centre, the Councillor still does not have it right.

We are told that the proposal involves the City taking on debt to be retired over a 40 year amortization. The annual cost of that debt is said to be $7.1 million. The principal source of funds for the $7.1 million is not from the shopping centre's property taxes but rather the $3.8 million in maintenance which the City would need to spend to continue the present programme activity at Lansdowne. This is the $4 million to which the Councillor refers in the article. Yes we have never adequately maintained Lansdowne in the past but it is argued that we will in the future and we are so sincere in our dedication that we can count on saving $3.8 million forever.

So the property taxes to be designated to pay down the debt load borne by the City will only cover a minority of the annual debt servicing cost of the proposal. And here we enter into the whole question of designating property tax revenues. If it can be done for the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park, I would suggest it can be done for anything. I might like marble sidewalks in front of my house -- this will cost nothing because my property taxes can be designated to pay for it. And what does everyone else want to do with their property taxes???

The fact is that Mr. Chiarelli, for reasons that escape me, has become prime cheerleader for the Lansdowne Live proposal from OSEG. He doesn't let reason or logic stand in the way of his advocacy. This is a pity; we expected more from him.