Message from Councillor Bradley:
As you know, City Council considered the final Lansdowne 2.0 proposal on Friday November 7th. Despite deep community opposition, the Lansdowne project passed with a vote of 15-10.
As committed, I voted against the Lansdowne 2.0 project.
I wanted to once again thank everyone in the community for engaging in the discussion, sharing your views, and making your position clear. While I have shared my concerns with the project in previous newsletters, I did want to share with the community my final statement at Council, which can be viewed here.
Statement Transcription (5:38:54)
“These last two weeks have felt like we’ve sprinted a marathon.
Truthfully though, it has felt more like a race to the bottom.
I have never seen a community building project – create such an extreme division. But I have to say that I am grateful for the public engagement and in particular to the residents of Gloucester-Southgate Ward who have made it crystal clear that they DO NOT support Lansdowne 2.0.
My residents recognize a bad deal when they see one.
They not only see that Lansdowne 2.0 demands a significant financial commitment from residents – with taxpayers underwriting the entire risk of the new $331M in debt.
But they have also taken note that this plan strips away key amenities, fails to improve transportation to the site, reduces seating capacity, drives up ticket prices, and gambles on uncertain revenue streams with little accountability and even less transparency.
If all that doesn’t make you second guess this project, the Auditor General’s Report should give you cause for concern.
This project is being sold as a steal of a deal, with a financial model that only a few can even begin to understand.
But what we do know is that the ‘good deal’ relies heavily on revenue projections and controlled project costs which our Auditor General has cautioned this Council – that these projections may be overly optimistic.
She identified risks like:
-
-
A high potential for construction costs overruns – which taxpayers are responsible for;
-
-
-
An insufficient contingency fund;
-
-
-
Overly optimistic RedBlack performance and revenue projections that may not materialize;
-
-
-
Interdependency risk – with the low financial commitment Mirabella has to complete the purchase of the air rights.
-
Yes, all projects have risks, yes risks can be mitigated. But if you look at the staff response to the AGs concerns, there is no real action. There is a vague statement to promise to monitor the risks – not mitigate them.
But let’s face it, taxpayers are paying for this one way or the other. If these risks materialize the public is on the hook and well the ‘deal just becomes less sweet’.
I truly believe that good projects do not need spin, they do not need analogies, they should stand on the merits and the value to the public should be clear. The value of this project is clear as mud.
Yes, we will have two new shiny buildings, but they will be privately operated, expensive for the general public to access, difficult to get to, and by the time the partnership ends in 2075, they will be nearly half a century old and probably once again functionally obsolete.
This doesn’t take this asset off our books; it shoves it to the front of the line. Private partner or not, public funds are paying for this rebuild.
This will no doubt be the largest investment in recreation facilities we make in the next decade. Think about that when you think about the community buildings in each of your wards.
How is it that when it comes to local facilities our pockets are empty, but when OSEG comes knocking, we fall over ourselves to find a way.
We issue debt, build up reserve funds to service that debt, we use tools like the MAT, sell public air rights, and siphon off future property tax revenue and just by calling it uplift, its free to redirect to this project.
The creativity is inspiring, but where is that creativity to tackle our 10.8 billion dollars and growing infrastructure deficit?
Where is that creativity to address our housing crisis?
Where is that creativity to shore up our structural transit deficit?
I have heard that we must walk and chew gum at the same time and I totally agree, but the reality is were viscously chewing that gum for this project while addressing our other priorities at a walking snail’s pace.
While Lansdowne 2.0 has been sold as a good deal, I assure you it will leave us all holding the bag.”
