Much of the press coverage about the Auditor General's report on the Lansdowne redevelopment scheme has been highly misleading.
In his report delivered June 17, the City Auditor General was very clear that he had a tightly defined mandate. Put simply, he took the figures provided by the proponents of the project, he accepted their hypotheses about flows of funds, and verified that the numbers could produce the results the proponents claimed. Stated more bluntly, he checked the arithmetic and but was not allowed to question whether the calculations made any sense.
Quoting directly from the AG's report -- "The audit scope was limited to an assessment of the financial information contained in the LPP proposal. The audit did not include generating independent figures, nor was it intended to provide an opinion on the development itself. As such, it does not represent an evaluation of the merits of the underlying concepts for re-development of the Lansdowne Park site as presented in the LPP proposal (e.g., a private-sector partnership, revenue neutrality, the use of property taxes, the optimal site for a stadium, etc.)."
By contrast, we have seen all sorts of press statements such as 24hours which ran the headline "makes sense" with the sub-head "City's AG gives thumbs up to Lansdowne partnership".
The reality of what our cautious City Auditor General said is quite different from the unrestrained boosterism of the local media.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Defiance of Council by City Manager
Who is running things at City Hall?
I have just begun to read the report of the Auditor General which was delivered at a Council meeting on June 17. Right at the front of the report the AG notes that Council had approved a motion (77/11) on November 9, 2009 in which the City Manager was instructed to "commission an independent study to evaluate the various consequences of dedicating property taxes to a single expenditure in the City's budget and the Auditor General verify the methodology".
The Auditor General notes that "Management did not complete the independent study referred to in Motion 77/11. As such, the Auditor General could not verify the methodology."
So Council directs the City Manager to deliver a study, but nothing is done. In spite of the fact that this is one of the studies that Council directed to be delivered in conjunction with its consideration of the so-called Lansdowne Partnership plan, it seems that Council is about to proceed to consider the plan regardless.
This is the same City Manager that cancelled a design competition for Lansdowne Park even though it had been approved by Council. The City Manager failed to come back to Council to seek its approval for the cancellation -- apparently he just went ahead and did it on his own. Later he did indicate, without remorse, that this may have been an error. Such reversal of a Council decision is something that Council itself cannot do easily, but it appears that the City Manager can do as he wishes.
Now we have the second time the City Manager has defied Council and refused to carry out its instructions.
It is time for a motion of censure to be brought before Council. In addition, any further discussion of the infamous Lansdowne Partnership plan should be deferred until the report called for in motion 77/11 is delivered and considered by Council.
I have just begun to read the report of the Auditor General which was delivered at a Council meeting on June 17. Right at the front of the report the AG notes that Council had approved a motion (77/11) on November 9, 2009 in which the City Manager was instructed to "commission an independent study to evaluate the various consequences of dedicating property taxes to a single expenditure in the City's budget and the Auditor General verify the methodology".
The Auditor General notes that "Management did not complete the independent study referred to in Motion 77/11. As such, the Auditor General could not verify the methodology."
So Council directs the City Manager to deliver a study, but nothing is done. In spite of the fact that this is one of the studies that Council directed to be delivered in conjunction with its consideration of the so-called Lansdowne Partnership plan, it seems that Council is about to proceed to consider the plan regardless.
This is the same City Manager that cancelled a design competition for Lansdowne Park even though it had been approved by Council. The City Manager failed to come back to Council to seek its approval for the cancellation -- apparently he just went ahead and did it on his own. Later he did indicate, without remorse, that this may have been an error. Such reversal of a Council decision is something that Council itself cannot do easily, but it appears that the City Manager can do as he wishes.
Now we have the second time the City Manager has defied Council and refused to carry out its instructions.
It is time for a motion of censure to be brought before Council. In addition, any further discussion of the infamous Lansdowne Partnership plan should be deferred until the report called for in motion 77/11 is delivered and considered by Council.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Puzzled by Roger and friends
It is becoming complex maintaining two blogs simultaneously. The other blog is for the election (I am a candidate for Councillor for Ward 17) while this blog is all-Lansdowne all the time. At any rate, the Lansdowne issue is the big issue in Capital Ward at least until June 28, so much of my work on the election side overlaps with my Lansdowne interest.
With that explanation, here is a message I posted on my election blog (http://brocklebank.blogspot.com/)---
I would recommend reading the article in the Ottawa Citizen of today (Sunday May 30) entitled "The Lansdowne Four".
The prime spokesman for the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, Roger Greenberg, is quoted as saying "What I'm not used to is people taking facts and deliberately changing them to suit their purposes. I've never seen that before. But I guess that's part of the game. I'm just not used to playing that game." I think Mr. Greenberg would do everyone a big favour by going further and listing the specific facts and how he considers that those facts have been distorted.
Another point that Mr. Greenberg could usefully elaborate is the fine distinction he is making in his statement "This is clearly not a sole-source contract. This was an unsolicited proposal."
First, I'm not sure that I understand the difference. Maybe Mr. Greenberg has a valid point; I just don't understand what that point is.
Second, I find the idea that it is an unsolicited proposal is hard to square with a passage earlier in the same article, a passage worth quoting:
The way Greenberg tells it, OSEG learned that its modest plan to lease Frank Clair Stadium from the city was a non-starter after meeting with Mayor Larry O'Brien and city manager Kent Kirkpatrick in the fall of 2007.
"Their comeback to us was, 'Guys, listen. We're not going to spend upwards of $100 million in taxpayers' money to fix up the stadium so you can play 10 games of football a year'" Greenberg recounts.
If the businessmen wanted to propose something more comprehensive, O'Brien and Kirkpatrick told them, the city would listen.
This raises two questions --
(a) Does the discussion with the Mayor and the City Manager constitute solicitation of an offer? If it does, I guess the "unsolicited proposal" description does not apply.
(b) Is the timing (autumn of 2007) correct? It is worth remembering that Council's approval of a design-to-build competition for Lansdowne was in late November of 2007. The announcement of the CFL conditional franchise was in March 2008. The suspension of the design-to-build competition was May/June 2008. The Lansdowne Live proposal indicating OSEG was moving beyond a simple stadium rental was revealed on October 17. 2008. If the timing in the Citizen article is correct, the most senior elected official of the city plus the most senior member of city staff had been in discussions with OSEG for a year prior to the public statement of the intention by OSEG to submit an "unsolicited proposal".
I share with Mr. Greenberg the desire to have the facts stated clearly. Those facts can be interpreted differently, but we continue to need facts.
With that explanation, here is a message I posted on my election blog (http://brocklebank.blogspot.com/)---
I would recommend reading the article in the Ottawa Citizen of today (Sunday May 30) entitled "The Lansdowne Four".
The prime spokesman for the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, Roger Greenberg, is quoted as saying "What I'm not used to is people taking facts and deliberately changing them to suit their purposes. I've never seen that before. But I guess that's part of the game. I'm just not used to playing that game." I think Mr. Greenberg would do everyone a big favour by going further and listing the specific facts and how he considers that those facts have been distorted.
Another point that Mr. Greenberg could usefully elaborate is the fine distinction he is making in his statement "This is clearly not a sole-source contract. This was an unsolicited proposal."
First, I'm not sure that I understand the difference. Maybe Mr. Greenberg has a valid point; I just don't understand what that point is.
Second, I find the idea that it is an unsolicited proposal is hard to square with a passage earlier in the same article, a passage worth quoting:
The way Greenberg tells it, OSEG learned that its modest plan to lease Frank Clair Stadium from the city was a non-starter after meeting with Mayor Larry O'Brien and city manager Kent Kirkpatrick in the fall of 2007.
"Their comeback to us was, 'Guys, listen. We're not going to spend upwards of $100 million in taxpayers' money to fix up the stadium so you can play 10 games of football a year'" Greenberg recounts.
If the businessmen wanted to propose something more comprehensive, O'Brien and Kirkpatrick told them, the city would listen.
This raises two questions --
(a) Does the discussion with the Mayor and the City Manager constitute solicitation of an offer? If it does, I guess the "unsolicited proposal" description does not apply.
(b) Is the timing (autumn of 2007) correct? It is worth remembering that Council's approval of a design-to-build competition for Lansdowne was in late November of 2007. The announcement of the CFL conditional franchise was in March 2008. The suspension of the design-to-build competition was May/June 2008. The Lansdowne Live proposal indicating OSEG was moving beyond a simple stadium rental was revealed on October 17. 2008. If the timing in the Citizen article is correct, the most senior elected official of the city plus the most senior member of city staff had been in discussions with OSEG for a year prior to the public statement of the intention by OSEG to submit an "unsolicited proposal".
I share with Mr. Greenberg the desire to have the facts stated clearly. Those facts can be interpreted differently, but we continue to need facts.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Descent into cynicism
I have always been a conspiracy denier. I've never thought there were spooks or reds under every bed.
But as a regular reader of the Ottawa Citizen, I am wondering about journalistic integrity at our leading, maybe-again-solvent, newspaper. I wonder if the news and editorial comment would be a bit different if I took out full-page ads every weekend to sell real estate.
I note that the blog by Maria Cook, the one and only Citizen blog that ever gives any credence to critics of the Lansdowne Live boondoggle, seems frozen in time. Strangely enough, when you take a peek, there is nothing more recent than May 4. Some say there was other material which has mysteriously disappeared.
This is not the first time that the Citizen has engaged in self-censorship. I seem to recall that there was a critical comment by the distinguished architect who designed the UofO SITE building. I'm told that his comments were not glowing praise for the Lansdowne Live proposal. It strangely disappeared, never to be seen again.
Not only is dissent being suppressed, the propaganda machine at the Citizen is in full flow, churning out praise for the latest revelations about the Lansdowne operation. As prime example, I would cite the column in today's Citizen by Ken Gray. He trots out the tired canard that the only alternative to the Lansdowne Live scheme is to do nothing and allow mould to cover the park. He claims that the tide is turning and that those who have dared to question the scheme are now coming around to buy in to the Lansdowne Live proposal.
Well, I guess I missed my chance. The Citizen and other Canwest papers were up for sale. It seems they were well and truly purchased.
But as a regular reader of the Ottawa Citizen, I am wondering about journalistic integrity at our leading, maybe-again-solvent, newspaper. I wonder if the news and editorial comment would be a bit different if I took out full-page ads every weekend to sell real estate.
I note that the blog by Maria Cook, the one and only Citizen blog that ever gives any credence to critics of the Lansdowne Live boondoggle, seems frozen in time. Strangely enough, when you take a peek, there is nothing more recent than May 4. Some say there was other material which has mysteriously disappeared.
This is not the first time that the Citizen has engaged in self-censorship. I seem to recall that there was a critical comment by the distinguished architect who designed the UofO SITE building. I'm told that his comments were not glowing praise for the Lansdowne Live proposal. It strangely disappeared, never to be seen again.
Not only is dissent being suppressed, the propaganda machine at the Citizen is in full flow, churning out praise for the latest revelations about the Lansdowne operation. As prime example, I would cite the column in today's Citizen by Ken Gray. He trots out the tired canard that the only alternative to the Lansdowne Live scheme is to do nothing and allow mould to cover the park. He claims that the tide is turning and that those who have dared to question the scheme are now coming around to buy in to the Lansdowne Live proposal.
Well, I guess I missed my chance. The Citizen and other Canwest papers were up for sale. It seems they were well and truly purchased.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Read your own paper!
Life is complex and it is difficult to keep up. However this is no excuse for the apparent muddled thinking of the Ottawa Citizen editorial board. Apparently the people who write the editorials do not read the news stories carried in their own paper.
On Wednesday April 21, the newspaper carried an editorial with the title "Rush to judgement". The position taken in the editorial was that the Glebe Business Improvement Area was too hasty in criticizing plans for the commercial development at Lansdowne Park which had come to their attention.
But the editorial contained two "howlers" that call into question the capability of the authors to make any statement about the Lansdowne project.
First the editorial said "Planner George Dark and his colleagues’ proposal for Lansdowne Park isn’t expected to be unveiled until May 10". In fact it is not George Dark and his team, but rather the five design teams working on the Lansdowne Park "front lawn" -- really the backyard -- whose designs are to be received and released to the public.
It is not clear that the "master plan" which is to bring together the various separate designs, and which is Dark’s mandate, will ever be made public. As far as anyone knows, Dark’s comments on the "unique" retail experience proposed for Lansdowne are not for public consumption. Maybe George Dark and his two colleagues will whisper a few remarks in the ear of the Mayor, or may slip some information to Roger Greenberg, but there is no stated intention of telling the public what those three highly-qualified team members think.
Later in the editorial appears the comment that "It’s too bad the city didn’t conduct a study of the business effects of the new Lansdowne on Bank Street...". My understanding is that, as a participant in the Lansdowne "partnership", the city funded a study that conveniently concluded that plunking a major shopping centre in Lansdowne was just fine and would have no negative consequences for existing businesses. In addition, the city provided support for the study undertaken for the Glebe BIA which concluded that the capacity of the Glebe and Ottawa South to absorb new retailing was much more modest than that proposed by the promoters of Lansdowne Live. So to try to reconcile the irreconcilable, the city is now paying for a report which would try to bring these two studies to a common conclusion. In addition, your taxes are also supporting a further study to attempt to specify the unique nature of the shopping proposed at Lansdowne.
All these studies have been reported in the pages of the Ottawa Citizen. What is really too bad is that the Citizen editorial board has not learned of their existence.
Readers might wonder why it is necessary to define the unique nature of shopping at Lansdowne. After all, many of the shops at St. Laurent are the same as those at Bayshore and this does not seem to bother anyone. This drive to make Lansdowne unique is to justify the extraordinary financial arrangements proposed in an attempt to justify the Lansdowne Live boondoggle.
It has been suggested (sometimes with a straight face) that the property taxes on the retail component at Lansdowne will pay for the debt incurred for the stadium/arena renovation and for other city costs associated with the proposed project. This dubious idea is founded on the assumption that the retail operation at Lansdowne, built on city land offered rent-free, would never have been contemplated elsewhere in Ottawa. Moreover the retail at Lansdowne is assumed to make so few demands on city services that 75% of the taxes paid is not needed to fund services and can be diverted to the stadium/arena redevelopment.
This idea that the retail at Lansdowne is special is one of the most curious parts of the whole confidence game now underway. It is exactly the suspicion that Lansdowne will be just another mall or "power-centre" that has likely stimulated the Glebe BIA to make its concerns known. Apparently the plans indicate that the promoters of Lansdowne Live believe that a grocery store facing on Bank Street would be something new and exciting for Ottawa. Please excuse my yawn.
While I nap, perhaps the members of the Citizen editorial board would like to read some back issues of their own paper.
On Wednesday April 21, the newspaper carried an editorial with the title "Rush to judgement". The position taken in the editorial was that the Glebe Business Improvement Area was too hasty in criticizing plans for the commercial development at Lansdowne Park which had come to their attention.
But the editorial contained two "howlers" that call into question the capability of the authors to make any statement about the Lansdowne project.
First the editorial said "Planner George Dark and his colleagues’ proposal for Lansdowne Park isn’t expected to be unveiled until May 10". In fact it is not George Dark and his team, but rather the five design teams working on the Lansdowne Park "front lawn" -- really the backyard -- whose designs are to be received and released to the public.
It is not clear that the "master plan" which is to bring together the various separate designs, and which is Dark’s mandate, will ever be made public. As far as anyone knows, Dark’s comments on the "unique" retail experience proposed for Lansdowne are not for public consumption. Maybe George Dark and his two colleagues will whisper a few remarks in the ear of the Mayor, or may slip some information to Roger Greenberg, but there is no stated intention of telling the public what those three highly-qualified team members think.
Later in the editorial appears the comment that "It’s too bad the city didn’t conduct a study of the business effects of the new Lansdowne on Bank Street...". My understanding is that, as a participant in the Lansdowne "partnership", the city funded a study that conveniently concluded that plunking a major shopping centre in Lansdowne was just fine and would have no negative consequences for existing businesses. In addition, the city provided support for the study undertaken for the Glebe BIA which concluded that the capacity of the Glebe and Ottawa South to absorb new retailing was much more modest than that proposed by the promoters of Lansdowne Live. So to try to reconcile the irreconcilable, the city is now paying for a report which would try to bring these two studies to a common conclusion. In addition, your taxes are also supporting a further study to attempt to specify the unique nature of the shopping proposed at Lansdowne.
All these studies have been reported in the pages of the Ottawa Citizen. What is really too bad is that the Citizen editorial board has not learned of their existence.
Readers might wonder why it is necessary to define the unique nature of shopping at Lansdowne. After all, many of the shops at St. Laurent are the same as those at Bayshore and this does not seem to bother anyone. This drive to make Lansdowne unique is to justify the extraordinary financial arrangements proposed in an attempt to justify the Lansdowne Live boondoggle.
It has been suggested (sometimes with a straight face) that the property taxes on the retail component at Lansdowne will pay for the debt incurred for the stadium/arena renovation and for other city costs associated with the proposed project. This dubious idea is founded on the assumption that the retail operation at Lansdowne, built on city land offered rent-free, would never have been contemplated elsewhere in Ottawa. Moreover the retail at Lansdowne is assumed to make so few demands on city services that 75% of the taxes paid is not needed to fund services and can be diverted to the stadium/arena redevelopment.
This idea that the retail at Lansdowne is special is one of the most curious parts of the whole confidence game now underway. It is exactly the suspicion that Lansdowne will be just another mall or "power-centre" that has likely stimulated the Glebe BIA to make its concerns known. Apparently the plans indicate that the promoters of Lansdowne Live believe that a grocery store facing on Bank Street would be something new and exciting for Ottawa. Please excuse my yawn.
While I nap, perhaps the members of the Citizen editorial board would like to read some back issues of their own paper.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Transportation study - haste makes waste
To the astonishment of folk close to the Lansdowne project, the terms of reference for the transportation study are to come before the joint Transportation and Transit Committee on Monday Feb. 8. Until a couple of days ago, the plan had been to have the standing committee look at the terms of reference on Feb. 17.
Obviously someone is in a big hurry.
Another indication of the perceived need for speed is the proposal that the contract for the study be let without competition. Who cares about value for money when you're in a rush?
It is said that the company that did the initial transportation study for OSEG has been preparing the terms of reference for the next study and it is the firm who will (without competition) be awarded the next study. We should learn if this is the new modus operandi around City Hall.
And without getting into a lot of the detail about the next study, I think it is being misconstrued in the media. In today's (Feb. 4) Citizen the study is described as determining "how the Lansdowne Live project will affect traffic". That is not what the Council resolution back in November demanded. The motion asked the study to ascertain "...whether or not impacts on traffic circulation and on-street parking resulting from the implementation of the LPP can be reasonably accommodated...".
The clear implication is that if the transportation issues cannot "be reasonably accommodated", the plan cannot proceed.
I believe it is important that the transportation study be required to explicitly demonstrate that the transportation issues can be addressed. Failing such a demonstration, the project should be halted.
Obviously someone is in a big hurry.
Another indication of the perceived need for speed is the proposal that the contract for the study be let without competition. Who cares about value for money when you're in a rush?
It is said that the company that did the initial transportation study for OSEG has been preparing the terms of reference for the next study and it is the firm who will (without competition) be awarded the next study. We should learn if this is the new modus operandi around City Hall.
And without getting into a lot of the detail about the next study, I think it is being misconstrued in the media. In today's (Feb. 4) Citizen the study is described as determining "how the Lansdowne Live project will affect traffic". That is not what the Council resolution back in November demanded. The motion asked the study to ascertain "...whether or not impacts on traffic circulation and on-street parking resulting from the implementation of the LPP can be reasonably accommodated...".
The clear implication is that if the transportation issues cannot "be reasonably accommodated", the plan cannot proceed.
I believe it is important that the transportation study be required to explicitly demonstrate that the transportation issues can be addressed. Failing such a demonstration, the project should be halted.
Why now?
Councillor Clive Doucet has been outspoken in his criticism of the Lansdowne Live proposal for redevelopment of Lansdowne Park. His concerns about process have seemed reasonable enough. He has shown less interest in the financial side of this give-away proposal than I would have expected, but he has been consistent in questioning the wisdom of the so-called partnership arrangement.
Now suddenly he has written to the National Capital Commission asking that the NCC buy Lansdowne Park from the City. It is not clear to me why Mr. Doucet thinks selling the park to the NCC is a good idea nor is it obvious why this idea has been sprung on the NCC at this moment.
Whether we like it or not, the City has managed to get the NCC to become a partner (maybe a reluctant partner, but a partner all the same) in the Lansdowne Live implementation exercise. The NCC was represented on the stage when the design panel led by George Dark was introduced in mid-January. The NCC is to be involved in the design competition for the "front lawn".
I consider the Lansdowne Live approach to be wrong-headed. I hope that the NCC will come to the same conclusion as it is more deeply exposed to the arrangement.
But I do not think that the NCC is going to change course instantly. A large organization does not turn on a dime.
Rather than coming out now with the idea of the NCC taking over the Park (an idea I don't particularly support), it would be much better to give the NCC ample time to become disillusioned with the process.
Possibly Councillor Doucet does not really want to have the NCC take over Lansdowne; maybe his letter is just an expression of his frustration with the process up to now. But I think it would have been better to allow public opinion to drive a wedge between the NCC and the promoters of Lansdowne Live at City Hall, and then suggest an NCC takeover.
Now suddenly he has written to the National Capital Commission asking that the NCC buy Lansdowne Park from the City. It is not clear to me why Mr. Doucet thinks selling the park to the NCC is a good idea nor is it obvious why this idea has been sprung on the NCC at this moment.
Whether we like it or not, the City has managed to get the NCC to become a partner (maybe a reluctant partner, but a partner all the same) in the Lansdowne Live implementation exercise. The NCC was represented on the stage when the design panel led by George Dark was introduced in mid-January. The NCC is to be involved in the design competition for the "front lawn".
I consider the Lansdowne Live approach to be wrong-headed. I hope that the NCC will come to the same conclusion as it is more deeply exposed to the arrangement.
But I do not think that the NCC is going to change course instantly. A large organization does not turn on a dime.
Rather than coming out now with the idea of the NCC taking over the Park (an idea I don't particularly support), it would be much better to give the NCC ample time to become disillusioned with the process.
Possibly Councillor Doucet does not really want to have the NCC take over Lansdowne; maybe his letter is just an expression of his frustration with the process up to now. But I think it would have been better to allow public opinion to drive a wedge between the NCC and the promoters of Lansdowne Live at City Hall, and then suggest an NCC takeover.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)