I.M. Pertinenet - KEDCO gets an F... Kingston an economic underachiever

[posting]

Since only KCAL (and not our "watchdog" media) seems to have picked up on this rather astonishing economic news so far lets see how KE readers feel about it. Take a look at Wednesday's Globe and Mail article (below) and the CIBC's economic study (link provided) for a clear and concise measure of what KEDCO's three-year, $7-million-plus funding deal with city hall has done for Kingston. Others may disagree, or argue about the validity of the data, or blame city hall, or ignore the study completely, but in my book, CIBC's economic snapshot is by and large a report card on KEDCO and the grade is a big fat F.


THE UNDERACHIEVERS: Four economies with potential, but missing the mark in building the buzz

Globe and Mail GORDON PITTS AND GREG KEENAN April 2006
Print Edition 26/04/06 Page B6 - Excerpt

Kingston: Greying population seeks renewal

Kingston looks like a winner: a historic town with a renowned university, famed military college, attractive lakeside setting, and 115,000 people situated along the major highway between Toronto and Montreal. Alas, look more closely -- the city is way down in the rankings in the CIBC economic activity index. It is attracting new people but they are often senior citizens who like rustic limestone cottages, but are less interested in industries and events that make the economy grow. Trouble is, a vibrant economy needs lots of new people in the 19 to 65 age group. Projects that appeal to young families, such as an arena and entertainment complex proposed for the downtown, get a ho-hum response or downright resistance, from greying residents. Traditional manufacturing has been under pressure from the high Canadian dollar, and new companies are not sprouting in large numbers to take up the slack. Queen's University graduates do create startups, but they tend to do it elsewhere, business professor Ken Wong says. The Conference Board of Canada expects that manufacturing and construction will bounce back over the next two years, but what about the long term? Kingston has to shed its fusty institutional and anti-development bias and build a private-public consensus around projects that make it a more balanced economy.

CIBC's economic snapshot is available at: http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/metro_monitor.pdf

[Exhibitionist]

Thank you , Thank you, Thank you - posting!

KCAL site does (finally) have some valid research.

KCAL with validating information on the need for a "business promoting - LVEC!"

(By the way - the CIBC report is published every year.)

The report and its forecasts (I hate to say it) - but it is NO news to me.

I personally have been "backing" alot of my tax research, critical opinions & debate with the forum participants...
(Especially the nieve and simplistic - "interest groups" and their campaign against the LVEC and economic development.)

Also the local media (i.e Paper/TV) responsibility to inform citizens of business and economic realities!

We have no professional business column, or business TV "spot" available here - in years! (That is telling in itself.)

It just so happens that Kitchener/ Waterloo came overall at the top of economic "viability"....
In areas of : (Quality, Quantity jobs...etc.)

Just for those who tend to (not want to know), or not wish to read the entire report.....

Their success is likely based on IT, suppliers of, and housing, & importantly "development from such opportunities"!

Ottawa also did very well - because of IT coming back... and a more diversified economies. - (than ours)

Investment in projects that appeal to younger families, such as an arena and entertainment complex proposed for the downtown is also a (quality of life style) wish for many "working age people".

Unfortunately;

Most of the KCAL, (who are retires) and naysays are from the metropolitian/suburbanits that wish to sail into the sunset - somewhat quietly, gracefully and without business developments interupting their new "quiet" lifestyles: They do not see higher taxes, progress or needed city opportunities - for the up and coming younger generation that will support their current pensions.

And as the report also suggests that (Kingston's new businesses) from the likes of Queens grads etc. Tend to be 1 person entities that generally fade away within a few years. The CDN dollars should also suggest a "foreshadowing" regarding (tourism which is our largest business here) is/and will be impacting for many retail, hospitality and sundry
businesses. The requirements for passports in a few years time will also effect tourism.

This certainly is anything but new from my discussions regarding - KE, KCAL and taxation groups members.

But, what is MOST troubling - in the overall picture of Canada and Kingstons place in it. (looking forward)

(In the context of such a strong (current) economy, i.e investment, and current business development etc.)

a) But, Kingston has ("missed the bus"/opportunities in this economy) and moreover will be left behind (to catch up)...
b) But, with less " economic opportunities and business investment" NOW - to catch up will be very "taxing".

So now - we hope Kingstonians and so called "community groups" - finally read the writing on the - CIBC wall.

Maybe (they) will make more informed decisions to invest properly for (all) in their new communities (economic development) rather than self delusional black holes such as the "Grand Theatre" and the Tett.

[SLN]

Or the frickin skating rink behind city hall.

I think I'm a victim of 'arena fatigue.'

Build the LVEC already and forget about the Multiplex.
OR
Build the Multiplex already and forget about the LVEC.

that's where I officially stand.

[Exhibitionist]

The rink behind city hall is not a "black hole" like the Grand Theatre.

It is rather a good managable investment for the community.

It does enhance the "sport & leisure" and historical "culture" of downtown.

THe City Rink -

1) The fundraising, finacing and "festival" economic development is realistic.

2) The renewal of the "market square" is reasonable in budget & well overdue.

3) if it goes into debt - it is very manageable and not a big budget, nor to many unknowns for redevelopment.

4) It is also well used by a large spectrum and a good project for partnering with the community stakeholders.


The Grand Theatre - does not have have the "general characteristics" or the general publics backing as the latter example. Nor should we be pay for something that is such a risky "emotional" investment.

Especially when their was little pre- enginnering testing of the buildings "structure or refurbishment"costs.

It is a 100 years plus "old building" that has had little "structurally" done to it since it was built. What we have is a major liability without any realistic plan from the outcome. And has taken millions away from the multiplex, LVEC and infastructure that could have been managed properly.

Again; we see a perfect example of what happens when interest groups use the "historical spin" to get money from tax payers/City coffers it gets (unplanned and larger projects) in Kingston in trouble every time.

[Valley]

I suspect that we will not get much agreement in the Kingston community on the issue of tearing down the Grand!

I suspect that the larger issue of construction cost escalation is inflation which is affecting both new and rehab construction projects today. There may have been some issues which could have been forseen but inflation costs seems to be a major issue in all of our makor civic projects: the new Police Services Building, the LVEC, Multiplex, etc.

[Exhibitionist]

I DID NOT or would suggest for a moment you "teardown" the Grand!

If you understood building / construction (especially) on OLD building you would know that in most cases you end up almost rebuilding the foundations and replacing plumbing and wiring, removing toxic insulation, finding rot and on and on and on etc.

In most cases: restoration work on OLD buildings are the "highest risk construction" you can have.

And because of both current code requirements and building integraty issues (especially of a "public" building) you are bound to almost double an "estimated" cost for refurbishment.

Especially; during the "renovation" you suddenly "add extras" for long term convience: i.e staging systems, upgraded ammenities - and the impact on labour and material needs to do so.

Sure inflation in this current building market is obvious. But, that should have been costed in contractor "contracts".

Infact; I can garrantee once this project is finally completed - it will likely cost (the tax payers)
double the original estimate.

But, my point was: (and is)

Instead of asking the city taxpayers to pay for "risky heritage interest group" projects.

With our limited money (to invest in OUR community)

It is likely better spent on newer buildings (not high risk OLD buildings) especially when our current super 7 projects are NEEDED infastructure such as the multiplex, police and LVEC are for a wider "audience" than the "Grands" so called heritage groups preservation needs.

Again; I do not support in any way - the Cities / "our tax money" investing in a very risky old building - at this time.

[Valley]

Part of what makes Kingston distinctive is the breadth of its heritage buildings. It would seem quite narrow and restrictive to limit our municipal building work to new construction. Particularly when few (are there any?) of our new municipal buildings are of the same design and building quality of our heritage buildings.

[Exhibitionist]

I certainly agree Kingston has an abundant amount of "heritage type" or rather resent...19th century buildings.

That said:

I do not believe for a moment we are at (a deficit) in "attractive building landscapes" in Kingston
- for either the tourists
- or to show off to your visiting friends/ relatives.

But, we ARE in a fiscal deficit in Kingston:

- finacially (taxes - up 6% again this year...and next) - by the way the inflation rate is 2%.
- 2000 good paying jobs have disapeared from Kingston recently
- the recreational and community centres in Kingston are in a need of renewal.

It is somewhat obvious that - "public investment priorities" - should NOT be allocated to very risky renovation projects.

- such as the "Grand".

- Obvious construction overruns and now a call for A FULL audit
- is proof enough of the inefficient use of public funds

Kingston would be better served NOW (for ALL constituents) with prudent investments in new infastructure i.e "community projects" - such as the multiplex and the LVEC. (not just for local hertiage interest groups..)

Again; let hertiage groups look after the old building investment, grant writing and financing etc. (for now)

We have much more important priorities for Kingston: (jobs and recreational facilities) rather than pleasing retired pensioners dreams of a "European landscape" with "Grandious idea's" that end up costing us tax payers a fortune.

And infact you are incorrect.

Buildings such as St. Georges and most of the "limestone buildings" and older wooden homes are not built that well.

A German construction mason of 50 years - I know - said:- "they look pretty but I would not wish to live in them".
"The limestone is poor for building homes - drafty, attracts humidity - water & air penatrates them easily and most homes foundations, excavation where inadequently done."

Kingston's limestone as a (building material) is also one of the worst limestones you can use. Most of the buildings of any quality around here come from Quebec limestone quarries.