Sweeping statements

There is too much salesmanship masquerading as analysis around the Lansdowne project.

I have been re-reading the staff report to Council on the Lansdowne partnership proposal and am irritated that what purports to be analysis is in fact a sales brochure.

In my earlier posting "Contradiction and confusion" I noted that the staff report claimed that housing would only be built in phase 2, an optional second stage of the project. This is contradicted by the Memorandum of Understanding.

I also noted that the infamous waterfall of revenue is misdescribed in the staff report. The report suggests that the City is in first and fourth position to receive revenue. In fact the first revenues simply go into a reserve fund. The City is dead last to get anything out of the project.

But on re-reading there are other statements that leap out as unsubstantiated claims. For example, it is maintained that "enhancing trade show and consumer show space on the site would have jeopardized... ...a transformation plan that respects the intention of Council's motion, the unique characteristics of Lansdowne Park, and the financial viability and long-term sustainability of the site." I have seen no evidence to support such a claim.

On the financial front, the staff report says "Compared with historical operations of Lansdowne, the project is expected to generate positive cash flow to the City over the life of the proposed agreement with OSEG". What does such a sales pitch mean? Does is mean that a positive cash flow will be received over the life of the project? Or maybe it means that the negative position of the City will be less than in the "historical operations of Lansdowne"? What is taken into account in coming up with such a statement? How would the cash flow compare if a different sort of arrangement were struck (selling an asset, or receiving rent for example)?

And the most laughable of all is the statement "The financial due diligence carried out by the City and its consultants on the OSEG proposal has demonstrated, among other things, that the City would be receiving fair value under the Plan." For suspicious outsiders, the failure to release any of the meaningful analysis backing this statement looks strange. Moreover, the fact that the City is proposing to strike this deal with the consortium that refused from the outset to contemplate entering into any sort of competition, raises no end of red flags.

Now the really dedicated reader will have noted that there is a document prepared by Pricewaterhouse Coopers among the many documents issued in respect of this proposal. Some might be lulled into believing that a large and highly regarded firm has blessed this project and declared its finances above reproach. No, the Pricewaterhouse Coopers document has an interesting disclaimer at the end. Translated into layman's language is says - 'we were hired to prepare some Power Point slides and here they are'.

Frankly the staff report, thrust under the Councillors' noses at the last minute on September 2 is a disappointment. It is not surprising that the Councillors adopted a flurry of motions to try to get answers to questions which the the staff report failed to address.

Redevelopment of Lansdowne is an important issue for Ottawa. It should be the subject of sensible debate and analysis. Sweeping statements of assurance are to be expected from a salesman. What we need is real analysis.

Contradiction and confusion

Understanding the "Lansdowne partnership plan" isn't easy. There are many documents to read including:
1- the staff report to Council (23 pages - available on the city website)
2- the glossy giant-sized "plan" document (56 pages - available on the city website)
3 - a 5 centimetre thick book of appendices
4- a slide presentation to Council (promised on the city website but not there)
But it would be simpler for everyone if the documents didn't contradict each other. Or maybe someone could tell the public which documents are correct and which are in error.

Just to illustrate the problem, here are some of the contradictions.

-- When is the housing built?
The staff report to Council describes all residential components as being in Phase 2 Before Council it was said this was "plug and play" (apparently intended to suggest that residential components were optional and subject to some subsequent decision by Council). This is contradicted by the Memorandum of Understanding including in the glossy plan document. Clause 4.5 of the MOU says "The Stadium, the Retail Component, the Front Lawn, the Holmwood Townhouses and all parking except residential and hotel component parking, must as a condition of the Project, proceed concurrently."
Well, are the townhouses in phase 1 or phase 2?

-- When does the City get paid?
In the staff report to Council it is said that "the City of Ottawa is in the first and fourth position in the waterfall structure" indicating that funds start flowing to the City. But later on the same page (and in other documentation) it is clear that the first payments go into the "Lifecycle fund". This is not a flow of cash to compensate the City; it is a reserve fund for major maintenance of the stadium and civic centre. That fund will be called upon to keep the facilities from deteriorating. It is like the reserve funds of a condo or a portion of rent paid to a landlord to cover real costs. OSEG receives return on its equity and repayment of its equity before any distributions are made to the City.
So how is the City first in line to receive payment?

The more you read these documents, the more questions you have.