Not Bad Mr. Craig
I've known Canadian Taxpayers Federation rep Colin Craig for over a decade - even played on the same softball team as him a couple of falls back - and the last time we argued over drinks, it was over the Winnipeg Stadium project. I was mostly opposed to the use of the argument that the stadium is "used only ten times a year", suggesting that there were better arguments to use if one wanted to oppose building a new stadium. Colin, nice guy that he is, mostly indulged me and maintained a healthy back-and-forth that lasted at least one pint.
Well, I can't but notice that he didn't use the "bad" argument yesterday. Instead, he brought a good one to the table:
Notice he said "some of the valuable land around the stadium" and "ten times a year". Not "stadium" and "ten times a year". Anyhow, be sure to check out the picture. Not sure it could be done for $20 million, however I don't think Craig's wrong to suggest reno rather than rebuild.
Well, I can't but notice that he didn't use the "bad" argument yesterday. Instead, he brought a good one to the table:
"There's a lot of potential for developing the current stadium site and using the proceeds to pay for fixing it up." added Craig. "For example, we could put a hotel at the south end of the field with suites that double as luxury boxes. Another option would be to put additional seating on the roof of the hotel, similar to the seats outside of Wrigley Field in Chicago. Certainly, some of the valuable land around the stadium could be developed and used year round instead of as a parking lot ten times a year."
Notice he said "some of the valuable land around the stadium" and "ten times a year". Not "stadium" and "ten times a year". Anyhow, be sure to check out the picture. Not sure it could be done for $20 million, however I don't think Craig's wrong to suggest reno rather than rebuild.
To be fair to the CTF, most of the fancy new stuff that shows up in the picture (like that hotel in the south end) would be paid for with private dollars.
The $20 million would be spent on things like new washrooms, concessions, and unseen utility upgrades.
Posted by
PolicyFrog |
12:33 PM
Nothing new here.
This was explained to the current Bomber management a few years ago.
Best thing is for the current board to resign, elect a new board ( not sure how, cuz I don't know how or who actually owns the Bombers )implement the Tower report and develop the "free" land they have.
Amazing how in this town something old can be regurgitated, repackaged and be called genius. Hurry up boys and girls, Asper and Sammy are now looking at the U of M, yes, a year late and after the soccer facility is built.
Amazing how easy it is to burn through money thats not yours.
Posted by
Anonymous |
2:55 AM
Luc, I don't think I've ever responded to a blog post before (although I sometimes post on the CTF Blog - www.taxpayerblog.com), but your posting was forwarded to me and I wanted to thank you for doing our conversation and the CTF's proposal justice.
We said right in the news release that the CTF's proposal is not perfect. That wasn't the intent. The goal was to spark some debate and hopefully end up with multiple options for the public to consider.
Personally, I don't mind the current stadium and as the Tower report shows, we can get some more years out of it by making the necessary repairs. As we suggested, such repairs could be paid for by development of the existing land and through a per ticket tax.
Suggesting a combination of the two, along with returning the $40 million tax dollars dedicated towards a new project, back to taxpayers is in a nutshell the proposal. The numbers aren't perfect, but it's a starting point for debate.
I would agree with the anonymous post. This is not genius and the development part was proposed in the past. The question is, if we can come up with a legitimate ticket fee/development idea that would pay for those repairs, why can't the dozens of publicly paid bureaucrats and elected officials come up with something like this?
For the record, it's great to see David Asper taking an interest in development in the city. All we're trying to do is encourage a healthy public debate on the matter. If a referendum were held and if the public voted in favour of investing in a new stadium by a large margin, we would respect that decision.
Until that happens, we'll continue to hammer away on a process that is severely lacking transparency and public input.
Colin Craig
Posted by
colinandrewcraig |
12:52 PM
Nothing can be done with the current board in place. It's obvious , they do not control anything.
How is that a board can choose an inferior design, then allow it to morph into 2 other designs.
Has Asper BOUGHT the right to the Bombers ? Why is the board silent ?
The board has show itself to be inept. Till that changes, the public will have nothing to say. Just open your pocket and let them pick at it.
I would suggest removal of the board before anything is discussed.
Posted by
Anonymous |
1:24 PM