On Friday night, hockey had to be cancelled - the roof was leaking. The 67's had to wait until Saturday afternoon because water was dripping into the Civic Centre - not just into the seats, this time the water was leaking onto the ice surface.
But water infiltration was nothing new, the City of Ottawa has known for years about the problem. Why has nothing been done?
For some reason, there are people running the show at City Hall who think that you have to build a supermarket before you can fix up City assets at Lansdowne Park.
Some of those people claim that the legal case brought by the Friends of Lansdowne has delayed needed maintenance at Lansdowne. This is nonsense. The City is at perfect liberty to go ahead and fix up the roof of the arena.
No, it is the obsession that we must first build a subsidized shopping centre, that has led the City to continue its neglect of its assets at Lansdowne Park.
Showing posts with label Lansdowne Park. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lansdowne Park. Show all posts
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Foolishness versus illegality
In the seven days in which Ontario Superior Court has heard the case of Friends of Lansdowne versus the City of Ottawa, the complex Lansdowne Partnership Plan has been discussed in great detail. As I have listened to the lawyers present their clients' positions, is has been clear that there is much to criticize.
But for the Court, no matter how unwise or even foolish the arrangement may be, the issue is: do the City's actions constitute a violation of law?
The question of legality goes beyond what is sensible. There is no law against making a bad decision, or, put more bluntly -- stupidity can be perfectly legal.
The argument from the Friends of Lansdowne centres on three issues:
- Can the City of Ottawa ignore its own procurement policies without violating the requirement in the Municipal Act that it establish and maintain such policies;
- Has the financial arrrangment struck with Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group provided a benefit to a private party which is contrary to the Municipal Act; and
- Has the action of the City in withholding information or in presenting misleading information to the public and to elected officials constituted bad faith.
If the Court finds that any one of the allegations by the Friends of Lansdowne is valid, there may be a basis on which the the actions of the City may be nullified.
But in looking forward to the prospect that the Court might indeed quash the City's arrangment with OSEG, what exactly would that mean in practical terms?
While such a decision by the Court would certainly be a major story in the media and could be a political bombshell, it need not set back the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park in a major way. If the City really wants to rebuild the stadium and fix up the arena, it can go ahead and do so. After all, the City is putting up all the money for the redevelopment. If the City would like to have another organization take on the management of the facilities or to take responsibility for maintenance, it can readily run a competition to select firms to supply such services. If the City wants to sell or lease some of the property to generate revenue, it can do so.
In the hearing last week, the Lansdowne Partnership Plan was likened to a marriage. These days there are all sorts of ways in which relationships develop which are not marriages. And many of us would advise our adult children that rushing into marriage can be unwise.
If the Court decides that the LPP marriage should be annulled, that might be the best outcome for both parties.
But for the Court, no matter how unwise or even foolish the arrangement may be, the issue is: do the City's actions constitute a violation of law?
The question of legality goes beyond what is sensible. There is no law against making a bad decision, or, put more bluntly -- stupidity can be perfectly legal.
The argument from the Friends of Lansdowne centres on three issues:
- Can the City of Ottawa ignore its own procurement policies without violating the requirement in the Municipal Act that it establish and maintain such policies;
- Has the financial arrrangment struck with Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group provided a benefit to a private party which is contrary to the Municipal Act; and
- Has the action of the City in withholding information or in presenting misleading information to the public and to elected officials constituted bad faith.
If the Court finds that any one of the allegations by the Friends of Lansdowne is valid, there may be a basis on which the the actions of the City may be nullified.
But in looking forward to the prospect that the Court might indeed quash the City's arrangment with OSEG, what exactly would that mean in practical terms?
While such a decision by the Court would certainly be a major story in the media and could be a political bombshell, it need not set back the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park in a major way. If the City really wants to rebuild the stadium and fix up the arena, it can go ahead and do so. After all, the City is putting up all the money for the redevelopment. If the City would like to have another organization take on the management of the facilities or to take responsibility for maintenance, it can readily run a competition to select firms to supply such services. If the City wants to sell or lease some of the property to generate revenue, it can do so.
In the hearing last week, the Lansdowne Partnership Plan was likened to a marriage. These days there are all sorts of ways in which relationships develop which are not marriages. And many of us would advise our adult children that rushing into marriage can be unwise.
If the Court decides that the LPP marriage should be annulled, that might be the best outcome for both parties.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Rube Goldberg remembered
Back in the thirties and forties, there was a noted cartoonist, Rube Goldberg (and a similar British humourist, Heath Robinson) who drew pictures of very complex arrangements of mechanisms to accomplish mundane tasks. Bubbling tea kettles and bouncing balls combined with other devices to turn pages in newspapers or stir soup pots.
After sitting in court for seven days listening to the description of the Lansdowne Partnership Plan, I could not help thinking of those cartoons from the past. The lawyers from both sides described an extraordinarily complex business arrangement. But try as I might, I could not see the need for such complexity.
Much of the humour in the old cartoons comes from imagining the foolishness which would prompt anyone to assemble such ludicrous arrangements. I would have enjoyed the humour in the complexity of the Lansdowne setup, but I kept remembering that somehow I was paying for it all.
In fact, the more the complex arrangement was explained to the judge, the less funny it seemed. The complexity looked as if it were designed to conceal the reality of the arrangement rather than actually contributing to a positive outcome.
After sitting in court for seven days listening to the description of the Lansdowne Partnership Plan, I could not help thinking of those cartoons from the past. The lawyers from both sides described an extraordinarily complex business arrangement. But try as I might, I could not see the need for such complexity.
Much of the humour in the old cartoons comes from imagining the foolishness which would prompt anyone to assemble such ludicrous arrangements. I would have enjoyed the humour in the complexity of the Lansdowne setup, but I kept remembering that somehow I was paying for it all.
In fact, the more the complex arrangement was explained to the judge, the less funny it seemed. The complexity looked as if it were designed to conceal the reality of the arrangement rather than actually contributing to a positive outcome.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Purpose of this blog and background brief
For many months, I have been following with interest the public discussion about the redevelopment of Ottawa’s Lansdowne Park. As the debate continues I want to expose my thoughts and give others a chance to weigh in with their views. The topic can be approached from many different viewpoints and the documentation about the issue is becoming vast.
As general background, Lansdowne Park has been a subject of public debate in Ottawa for a long time. The talk heated up in 2007 with the rumour that there might be a plan to return football to Frank Clair Stadium, located in the park. In November 2007 City Council voted to initiate a design competition but this was halted in May 2008. In March 2008 a group of business men announced they had secured a conditional franchise from the Canadian Football League. When the consortium were asked if they proposed to participate in the competition, they said they would not do so. Their refusal to compete was the basis for the suspension of the competition.
In October 2008, the consortium promoting the return of football announced a plan for redevelopment of Lansdowne Park which they titled "Lansdowne Live". The focus of that plan was the rehabilitation of the Stadium and of the hockey arena known as the Civic Centre. They also proposed various commercial development on the park site.
Eventually another proposal for an open-air stadium came from owners of the large enclosed hockey arena located in Kanata in the Ottawa western suburbs. That proposal was submitted by the owners of the Ottawa Senators, a National Hockey League team. Their proposal was to secure a franchise for a major league soccer team to play in the proposed stadium.
With the design competition still suspended, Ottawa City Council agreed to have the two proposals for an open-air stadium analysed by city staff. Meanwhile the City had contracted for a study -- a needs analysis -- which would look at what would be required for a stadium. That study indicated that neither of the two proposals (Lansdowne or Kanata) were the best sites for a stadium.
When the analysis of the two proposals was presented to City Council, it was found that the Lansdowne proposal was preferred. City staff had proposed that Council consider whether having a stadium at all was a priority for the city, but Council sidestepped that question and directed city staff to enter into negotiation with the Lansdowne proponents. The consortium had adopted the name Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG).
Those negotiations continued from April 22, 2009 to September 2, 2009. On September 2, considerable documentation on what was called the "Lansdowne Partnership Plan" was released and is the basis for public debate in the Autumn of 2009.
As general background, Lansdowne Park has been a subject of public debate in Ottawa for a long time. The talk heated up in 2007 with the rumour that there might be a plan to return football to Frank Clair Stadium, located in the park. In November 2007 City Council voted to initiate a design competition but this was halted in May 2008. In March 2008 a group of business men announced they had secured a conditional franchise from the Canadian Football League. When the consortium were asked if they proposed to participate in the competition, they said they would not do so. Their refusal to compete was the basis for the suspension of the competition.
In October 2008, the consortium promoting the return of football announced a plan for redevelopment of Lansdowne Park which they titled "Lansdowne Live". The focus of that plan was the rehabilitation of the Stadium and of the hockey arena known as the Civic Centre. They also proposed various commercial development on the park site.
Eventually another proposal for an open-air stadium came from owners of the large enclosed hockey arena located in Kanata in the Ottawa western suburbs. That proposal was submitted by the owners of the Ottawa Senators, a National Hockey League team. Their proposal was to secure a franchise for a major league soccer team to play in the proposed stadium.
With the design competition still suspended, Ottawa City Council agreed to have the two proposals for an open-air stadium analysed by city staff. Meanwhile the City had contracted for a study -- a needs analysis -- which would look at what would be required for a stadium. That study indicated that neither of the two proposals (Lansdowne or Kanata) were the best sites for a stadium.
When the analysis of the two proposals was presented to City Council, it was found that the Lansdowne proposal was preferred. City staff had proposed that Council consider whether having a stadium at all was a priority for the city, but Council sidestepped that question and directed city staff to enter into negotiation with the Lansdowne proponents. The consortium had adopted the name Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG).
Those negotiations continued from April 22, 2009 to September 2, 2009. On September 2, considerable documentation on what was called the "Lansdowne Partnership Plan" was released and is the basis for public debate in the Autumn of 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)