Financing Arenas - the view from Pittsburgh

[posting]

The City of Pittsburgh has recently concluded a redevelopment deal for its arena. Some of the commentary may sound familiar to those who followed the LVEC debate. Details can be found below

Attached are copies of the terms of the deal, compare it with those announced for the LVEC, and recent letters to the editor.

_____________________________________

Pittsburgh Mellon Arena Development

City Neighborhoods
Hill District has its say on arena development

March 15, 2007

By Ann Belser and Mark Belko, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato had time to eat, sleep and shower before getting to work yesterday on the next big piece of the Penguins deal: redeveloping the 28 acres where the Mellon Arena and its parking lots are now.

Mr. Onorato wasn't flanked by the governor, the mayor and a passel of multimillionaires. Instead, he sat in the conference room of his office with members of the clergy and community leaders from the Hill District to discuss how to redevelop the Hill.

"We wanted to be sure we were included in things from this point forward so there would not be any missteps," said the Rev. Johnnie Monroe, pastor of Grace Memorial Presbyterian Church. "They have the people who are coming with money, but it's our community. We do not want the folks from the outside just coming in making the decisions."

"The next step is getting all the key parties at the same table," said Evan Frazier, the executive director of the Hill House Association. He said there should be a meeting with Pittsburgh and Allegheny County officials, someone from the city-county Sports & Exhibition Authority, Don Barden who won the right to develop the Pittsburgh casino and has pledged to help develop the old arena site, and Hill District leaders.

That meeting was originally scheduled to be a conference call, but after the announcement of the deal to build the new arena and keep the team in Pittsburgh, it was changed to a face-to-face in Mr. Onorato's office. The Penguins will have development rights over the Mellon Arena property.

Mr. Onorato said he wants any potential development to restore the grid from the Hill District to Downtown that stops now at the parking lot for Mellon Arena. He said the arena acts like a wall separating the neighborhood from Downtown.

"Once you do that, the Hill District becomes part of Downtown again," he said.

He said he also wants to make sure any momentum achieved by the development of the site is carried up into the neighborhood so the whole community benefits.

Under the deal with state and local leaders, the Penguins will have development rights over the Mellon Arena property as well as any portion of the old St. Francis Central Hospital site that is not used for their new home. Mellon Arena is to be demolished.

The team also is required to negotiate terms for Mr. Barden "to potentially participate in development rights." The Penguins also must work with the sports authority to put together a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the Mellon Arena site.

As part of the arena agreement, the team has the ability to assign those rights to another party. The Steelers and the Pirates hired Continental Real Estates Co. of Columbus, Ohio, to develop the land between Heinz Field and PNC Park.

One developer the Penguins may pursue is Nationwide Realty Investors, the company that developed the $540 million Arena District in Columbus with a mix of offices, bars, restaurants and housing. That district is anchored by the $160 million Nationwide Arena.

Nationwide Realty Investors is no stranger to Pittsburgh. It was part of the bid by Isle of Capri Casinos Inc. for the city's slot machine license, with a proposal to redevelop the Mellon Arena property with offices, residences and entertainment and to reconnect the Hill with Downtown.

It lost out on that chance when the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board selected Mr. Barden's PITG Gaming LLC over Isle of Capri and Forest City Enterprises Inc. But it could end up back in the picture now that the Penguins have control over development rights.

The Penguins are obligated to begin development after Mellon Arena is demolished and the authority clears the site. If the site ends up being 28 acres, the Penguins must develop 2.8 acres a year or risk forfeiting their rights to any portion that isn't developed.

The team will be required to pay the authority the appraised value for the property, but can take $15 million in credits against the purchase. It also will get the proceeds of land sales it or the authority makes to third parties. After 10 years, if the Penguins have not taken all $15 million in credits, the authority must pay the difference in cash.

At the same time, the Penguins probably won't have to wait until they move into their new home in 2009 to start getting more cash from concessions, parking and other arena revenue streams.

On June 30, the team plans to exercise an option to become master leaseholder at Mellon Arena. With the change, it will get to keep all building and parking revenues, money it now shares with SMG, which has served as leaseholder since 1991. The Penguins also will be responsible for all operating costs.

The team got the option as part of its 1999 bankruptcy. If the Penguins make the change, SMG would become the arena manager and would be paid a set fee.

Under their current arrangement, the team gets all hockey-related revenue and SMG keeps all non-hockey revenues, said Hank Abate, vice president of arenas of SMG. The two parties now share parking revenues, which are estimated at more than $2 million a year, according to some sources. As part of the deal to build the $290 million arena, the Penguins will manage, operate, maintain and retain all revenues from current and future parking at Mellon Arena.

Just how much more the Penguins can earn by keeping all Mellon Arena revenues is not known. Mr. Abate said the change "will probably improve their situation slightly," but declined to release any figures.

Marc Ganis, a Chicago-based sports finance consultant, said Mellon Arena could generate "low to mid single digit millions" annually for the team once it becomes the master leaseholder.

But he added the real money won't come until the Penguins move into the new arena, at which point the annual profit "should approach eight figures, maybe a couple clicks higher or a couple of clicks lower."

"It should be quite substantial, but they wouldn't be doing this deal if it wasn't," he said.

That should give the team millions of dollars more in revenue each year to help pay players. Penguins co-owner Mario Lemieux said during the announcement of the deal Tuesday that the new arena should allow the team to stay competitive and keep many of its talented young players.

As part of its arrangement with the Penguins, SMG will remain as arena manager until at least 2012, even after the opening the new building. Mr. Abate said the firm would like to extend the relationship beyond that.

"I think we can be of significance to the Penguins in terms of not only operating the new facility for them but also in maximizing the new bookings," he said, adding that SMG manages more than 70 arenas worldwide.

The deal between the Penguins and state and local leaders calls for the arena to be built by the fall of 2009, which Mr. Onorato called "a very tight timeline."

He said he expected demolition of the structures that are currently on the site to begin in a month, and that construction of the new arena could begin as soon as summer or fall.

[Jeffrey Lowes]

City left holding bag for $1M in pledges

http://www.intelligencer.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=464566&catname=City&classif=

City left holding bag for $1M in pledges

W. Brice McVicar / The Intelligencer
City - Thursday, March 29, 2007 @ 10:00

Groups and agencies failing to pay their portion of projects have left the City of Belleville holding a bill for about $1 million.

During a preliminary budget discussion Wednesday, Coun. Bob Dolan questioned one paragraph in the budget report which states the city has been "carrying projects completed some years ago that did not receive the level of public funding originally projected."

City treasurer Brian Cousins said there is approximately $1 million outstanding.

"We'd like to see these off the books," he said.

Cousins said one particular project, the track at Mary-Anne Sills Park, resulted in $250,000 in pledges never being collected.


Such circumstances are not entirely unusual, said chief administrative officer Steven Hyndman.

He told council the Mary-Anne Sills Park example was different as a change in legislation prevented the group behind the pledge, Belleville Sports and Leisure, from being able to hand the funds over to the municipality.

Coun. Jack Miller said when pledges are not fulfilled it is often not because the group pledging the money is being heartless.

"As much as the city may have taken any shortfall, it wasn't through malice," he said.

"There's reasons why these shortcomings happen. There's all kinds of laws that come along that no one could foresee."

Regardless, the shortcomings mean taxpayers end up carrying more of the costs for a project than originally projected, argued Coun. Taso Christopher. He suggested staff provide a "detailed list" of the missing pledges.

Coun. Tom Lafferty said he shares Christopher's view, adding the information could change the way he approaches projects where community members promise to provide financial assistance.

"I'm not going to commit to something if the funding is questionable," he said.

The suggestion to change the city's policy on funding community projects came from Coun. Jackie Denyes.

She told council it may want to investigate having groups sign a promissory note when pledging funds.

"How do you collect on promises?" she asked.

Council will be provided with a detailed list of the outstanding pledges.

[Dogma]

I do not understand your premise here? Are you suggesting the LVEC or Market Square "could have the same outcome"?

What has this to do with Kingstons LVEC?

Cousins said one particular project, the track at Mary-Anne Sills Park,Ofcourse a (betting tracks for horse races) maynot fall into the "sports, leisure and entertainment" category. Obviously; someone missed or is using no protocol with collecting donations for potential gaming commission issues!

In any event, if you have an experienced committee for fundraising "larger sums of money" for projects, you will need the sponsors gift in writing.
i.e for tax purposes. And ofcourse gaming and gambling projects maybe a red flag. This is fundraising 101.

But, please let us in on your point. We would be interested to understand your true reasoning.

[Jeffrey Lowes]

As you know a mirror will not reflect 100% of the light but lately Belleville and Gan have been smaller reflections of what is going on in Kingston. They could be a reflection of the future.

They operate under the same provincial rules and the same weight of services downloaded from the province.

With this in mind I would ask the question, Are others handling things better or working is such a fashion that the City of Kingston should be taking notes?

Are there better examples else where in the province?

Jeffrey

[Dogma]

I would suggest this PP "partnership" formula that is at the heart of this discussion has been in place in many City's of this province.

Infact; I would suggest the Greater Toronto Area - particularly The City of Brampton has had more experience, learning curve - than this part of the province. (Their newest hospital, highway upgrades and recreational centres have been PPP built.)

Typically Kingston and region are 7 years behind Toronto in terms of capacity building on new initatives.

And Belleville like Gan has been doing little in terms municipal PPP infastructure, thus has little experience. (On its own)

Could they be learning in terms of this projects? Depends if you wish to look in the mirror, and what mirrors should be looked into.

I for one do not think Market Square or the The Grand in particular should have been done. These were "Public Projects". Not PPP.

They may be identfied on the "super 7" wish list, but they are certainly neither big revenue generators (during this downloading period)
or a necessity to the well being "economics of the City" for the short term. If they were to be done, they should have been PPP.

PPP - There has been many articles, papers and research on this subject.

But, what I will say the reason for PPP is not just of the shrinking of "available Government funds" for such projects. Its the experiences and expertise that private and public agencies bring to the project.

If Belleville ran into a hitch I would suspect (they) tried to do things the traditional way, without "who you know process in place" and with little discussion with a private consultant who's in the know.

[Lydia]

I would suggest that the municipal governments never again take on projects that they don't have the funding in place. This idea that funding is promised by this or that branch of the provincial or federal governments is what has gotten many projects in the hole.

Many times municipal governments asked for funds, they have been stonewalled, or the promises have not been kept.

I wonder what projects would be done if we had to have funds in the bank BEFORE we took on projects to build. Wouldn't it be a new concept if we actually told the taxpayers what we PLANNED to do, take in consideration inflationary costs, and then actually do it?

The cities are depending too much on the other levels of government and frankly, I don't trust those levels. Yes it would be great if we could. However, what is so wrong but budgeting FOR a project, having enough money to build something on our own, then asking the levels of government to put their money into sponsoring the project.

Whether we like it or not the LVEC project has always been a source of concern because of the promises made to this building. It was never the involvement of the people who drew up the budget but that these people depended on the other levels of government.

[Dogma]

Lydia;

I agree with the concept of having all "cash" in the bank before you even conceptualize a project.

But, this is a rare event. (As rare of an event as this threads theme...)

Even putting an addition on your home is (contemplated and drawn up at the dinning room table) in a proposal well before you go to the bank for funds to cover the entire project.

Until a "plan" (i.e business plan, studies, consulation & drawings) are all completed, you have no solid idea
of the "total cost" of one's project.

In the LVEC case (as in many "public projects"- there is also a layer of political problem.)

LVEC Recap:

As you may recall the Federal Government changed from Liberal to Conservative over the period of the projects "proposal".

The Provincial Government did give a grant to the facility before it was even started to be built.

Infact; if the grant did not come through - the facility may not have been approved!

I believe like you - in fiscal responsibility for any "public" projects.

But, I also believe in "personal financial responsibility"...and I see more problems there within our society than in Government.

At least in Government there are some procedures, policies that must be adhered to before money flows for such projects. Sure there is lobbying, sure there is bias for political gain - but utlimately there are "procedures" to unlock a bank account for such needs.

And I would say since (after) Trudeau the fiscal balance sheet looks much better than most individuals do.

Indeed; in this case - having a "private public partnership" is a good balance in terms of these moderate spend projects.

I also believe the days of "local" handshakes for projects such as the Memorial Centre are almost gone.

i.e The Memorial Centre donation of property "with strings attached" from the Agricultural Society is simply opportunitist and fiscal savatouge for the building. Thus why it ran down. The Society leased the land to the City, and did not allow any changes to the grounds.

I would be more worrying about these types of traditional Kingston relationships than if some minor donations fall through.

So, in a nut shell I believe this thread has little to do with the LVEC and possible effects on donations suddenly evaporating.

The traditional method of a wink and handshake is the main problem with "publically financed infastructure".

[Lydia]

Until a "plan" (i.e business plan, studies, consultation & drawings) is all completed, you have no solid idea of the "total cost" of one's project.

I agree fully with you Dogma, I don't believe this was really the problem with the LVEC. What I believe caused people to mistrust this project is how the decisions were made on promises from the other levels of government. Also not having all the funds available to cover the projects doesn't fit well with people who are just trying to make things meet in their lives and don't have enough money for the necessities.

Having said that, the hand shaking days of the 1800th century are long gone. D: D: D Of course, we could bring them back and resolve things like they did then. Shoot the person who promised and didn't deliver. Lol lol. JOKING JOKING.

As I see it, I am happy that things are progressing in the right direction now and Kingston will have the various projects completed. Props to Harvey Rosen in staying with his dreams and plans. (Despite the fact that I don't agree with him) lol lol

[Bill(2)]

Well, there you have it. I think that we have seen some discussion that demonstrates the value of professional fundraisers. They will work on a handshake, but will properly make note of the deal including any conditions attached and also make sure that the contribution can indeed be made. That is their job.

Interesting note about the reason behind the degradation' to the Memorial Centre. I'm not sure that all of the degradation is due to lack of approval for changes, but it probably had an influence. :p

Thanks to Jeffery Lowes for pointing out the article. Really good basic point here - as we (the City of Kingston) has embarked on fund raising to contribute toward the costs of the KRSEC, and possibly other projects, there are pitfalls to watch out for. Good luck to the team.

[Dogma]

Mayoral candidates

Harvey Rosen

Donations collected: $68,095.95

Campaign expenses: $68,166.20

• Advertising: $19,731.57

• Signs: $12,214.43

• Brochures: $12,196.76

• Office expenses: $5,029.54

• Salaries: $3,860

Number of $750 donations: 26 (Kincore Holdings, Morven Construction, Jerome D. Taylor Chevrolet Cadillac, etc.)



Rick Downes

Donations collected: $32,586

Campaign expenses: $32,347.48

• Advertising: $7,522.82

• Signs: $11,951.12

• Brochures: $1,277.30

• Office expenses: $8,908.15

• Salaries: $0

Number of $750 donations: 2 (Ian Hughes, Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers’ Federation district 27)



Kevin George

Donations collected: $13,925

Campaign expenses: $22,855.95

• Advertising: $6,029.68

• Signs: $5,145.61

• Brochures: $6,156

• Office expenses: $4,419.77

• Salaries: $0

Number of $750 donations: 2 (Romeo Dipehand, Scott Industrial Services)



Council candidates

Rob Hutchison (King’s Town)

Donations collected: $5,920

Campaign expenses: $5,641.25

Spending limit: $10,384.40

Biggest donors: Jean Lamb ($750), R. Hutchison ($400).

Mark Gerretsen (Portsmouth)

Donations collected: $4,861

Campaign expenses: $7,252.33

Spending limit: $11,437.90

Biggest donors: John and Assunta Gerretsen ($500 each), Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association ($400).



Ed Smith (Williamsville)

Donations collected: $11,214

Campaign expenses:$10,044.35

Spending limit: $10, 079.20

Biggest donors: Walter Fenlon ($500), Kincore Holdings ($500).



Vicki Schmolka (Trillium)

Donations collected: $5,163.74

Campaign expenses: $5,121.76

Spending limit: $11,072.50

Biggest donors: Ian Hughes ($300), Troy St. John ($300 in-kind)



Steve Garrison

(Kingscourt-Strathcona)

Donations collected: $7,673.76

Campaign expenses: $7,673.76

Spending limit: $9,340

Biggest donors: Canadian branch of IAFF ($750), CUPE Local 1974 ($500)



Joyce MacLeod-Kane (Countryside)

Donations collected: $4,264.69

Campaign expenses: $4,264.69

Spending limit: $9,526.90

Biggest donors: Betty McKendry ($300), Sun Rae Construction ($300)



Leonore Foster (Pittsburgh)

Donations collected: $3,639

Campaign expenses: $4,294.76

Spending limit: $11,334.30

Biggest donors: Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association ($500), Kincore Holdings ($500)



Dorothy Hector (Lakeside)

Donations collected:$262.79

Campaign expenses: $4,288.88

Spending limit: $10,631.50

Biggest donors: N/A (all donations were under $100 and did not have to be revealed).



Rob Matheson

(Loyalist-Cataraqui)

Donations collected: $1,745

Campaign expenses: $1,546.45

Spending limit: $11,367.20

Biggest donors: OSSTF district 27 ($300), Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association ($250)



Sara Meers (Cataraqui)

Donations collected: $5,365

Campaign expenses: $3,900

Spending limit: $9,946.90

Biggest donors: Ian Hughes ($500), OSSTF ($300)



Lisa Osanic

(Collins-Bayridge)

Donations collected: $2,069

Campaign expenses: $4,369.17

Spending limit: $9,685.50

Biggest donors: OSSTF district 27 ($300), 1622254 Ontario Ltd. ($150)



Bill Glover (Sydenham)

Donations collected: $8,692.99

Campaign expenses: $8,426.13

Spending limit: $9,855.90

Biggest donors: M. Nicoll-Griffith ($500), Richard Milne ($400)

[Wally Cat]

Oh enough on the subject of LEVC budget!
Lydia is the only person on here who makes recent sense.
I am neither for nor against the LEVC project but I have been following this Iceberg waiting for a Titanic since it’s inception.

What is the latest budget $47 million or so? Based on what 3-year-old numbers?
I’m not stating this as fact and it really is irrelevant - a realistic project completion cost would be in the $57 to $ 61 million. I state this figure based on my experience as a corporate real estate consultant. My most recent project was in securing funding for the Trump Tower at Bay & Adelaide St. Toronto. In case you didn’t know Trump has nothing to with it except for his name as a brand. The actual owners are two Russian ex-pats. I am originally from Kingston but now live and work in downtown Toronto.

Some people think the LEVC is a crime? – Ok lets look at it that way- Means? Motive? Opportunity? Who benefits the most from this project? A quick trip to the Registrar’s Office to do title searches on the surrounding real estate should give you some clues. I moved out of Kingston (born & raised) several years ago but the office used to be beside the Old Court House?
Also what happened to Don Gedge the original Project Manager?

Lydia is right to express her concerns on Government funding. If you don’t have it now you are not going to get it. And there will be no future government funding because no right thinking politician at any level seeking re-election will take on this financial burden if they can pass it off on some one else. In this case the Taxpayers of Kingston.

Now I have been following the postings on this site for a couple of years and this is the first I have ever posted, and my rules of engagement are simple. If you are not originally from Kingston and if you really do not know anything about commercial real estate development then please don’t burdened me or this site with your diatribe.

I really want to believe that LEVC could be built for the budget that is being bantered about but I would be foolish to think that it can.

[Lydia]

Thank you Wally Cat for your kind words which is very much appreciated.

Last night at council meeting this topic was spoken about as to whether the City should get the KPG Accounting Firm do do another audit. At least the good thing we learned is that the staff has taken measures to correct the imbalances that the original audit uncovered. I think this is a good move.

It was very interesting to me that the BUDGET was for CAPITAL COSTS ONLY. Hum, Wonder what the other costs are going to be???

I said it from the start that is project would cost around the 50 to 60 Million dollar figure. Looks like this is where it is heading.

[Dogma]

Just wait...........

I think we just had - a "Kingston moment"!

It happens every so often...

Financing for the trump tower really! Very impressive.

Do you do mergers an aquisitions? My father does the same.

What is a "corporate real estate consultant" anyways?

My father is a glorified salesman. And he admits it. (after a few glasses of red wine)

I have no experience with corporate real estate . ZERO.

I agree there is potential with construction projects for overruns...especially if there are environmental contamination of the site. (Kingston has a 19th century history in terms of contaminating their waterfront.)

Canadian history - of who gives a crap about throughing garbage in the lake, or putting a DUMP on the waterfront or dumping tar in a pit!

Hmmmm, I wonder if this was not done if the costs would be as they are today? So, yes indeed the public has an obligation to PAY for the environmental portion of this project.

I have been a construction estimator for 20 years, and I can tell you the difference between costings and selling costs.

Projects of this type (this is NOT a T.O tower worth a billion dollars, nor is it Skydome) as many HERE belieive...

Especially; from most who follow the Kingston Whig letters to the editor or KCAL from afar........
- FYI LVEC not LEVC.

I do not believe the budget is just for capital costs. If you read the business plan and Ms. Kennedy's audit report

And capital costs means? The building and everything in it. The extra seating of 1000 is just that an "extra" if it is approved. Not part of the original design.

frankly as I have said I believe the tax payer should pay for part of the project. SOME MAYBE BRAINWASHED OVER THE "DEBATE" - misinformed about these facilities and (Kingston's need) of a multipurpose facility in the downtown.

I certainly do not believe the urgency of the Grand nor Market Square. Or the third crossing. I think these could have waited...longer. Probably best for this council anyways. The feel good projects.

Ravensview the LVEC is long over due and adds economic value and safety to our community in my mind.

Windmills on Wolfe Island - sure necessary.

Roads and sewers in the downtown, Portsmouth region sure...the suburbs are new enough.

Affordable housing (usually located downtown) higher welfare and minimum wage - sure.

But most of these are not municipally funded.

Or should I say the Provincial and Federal "programs" are the main sources.

Taxes maybe going up again. Alot in the past 9 years. (but they were to low to long) And this is not T.O or Calgary. This is an institutional town. That do not pay corporate taxes.

Frankly, Canada has the lowest itaxes in the G8 and its about time we took responsibility for our generational free ride.

PPP are a good way to go. For some larger municipal projects.

One way of taking responsibility for your communities long term "well being" would be with economic development - especially since the "trump towers" would never be allowed here, so what to do?

Memorial Centre is not fit anymore nor affordable to run. Any extention to it would cost 20 million and you still do not increase its capacity or multifunctional revenue assets. Or quality of life priorities. It also a buried site - so restricted in terms of revenue streams. Put it out on 401? - encourages urban sprawl and Walmarts that take sustainable revenue from downtown local shops.

What to do - nothing? Please tell me??????????????????????? Wally Cat.

Yes, I believe it will be within 10% of the original (North Block) budget.

And yes Government Federal Funding is still possible.

Again, its the Grand Theatre and Market Place that should never have been begun. Between the two they have sucked 3 times the budget overage of the LVEC.

Like it or not "(born & raised) that is the reality.

[Lydia]

I have to admit Dogma, that your position as a construction estimator for 20 years is very admirable and a very difficult career. I believe that you honestly did approve of the budget that was presented to council.

The reason I stated that the cost so far was for CAPITAL COSTS only is because it was stated so in last Tuesday’s council. I am not certain but I believe that question was asked of Miss Kennedy last Tuesday, however it could have been her assistant. For this reason I am asking about the other costs that might be involved that are usually considered CAPITAL. To me as an accountant, CAPITAL COSTS are ones that will paid for over time (30 to 50 Years) and that for the most part will either increase in value (i.e. your homes) or have a long life span (i.e. Office equipment, ice equipment that will have a life span) However, those are not the only costs are prop themselves into the overall costs. We need to look at all the Purchasing Costs, etc.

Once you take that into the budget, you now know what this entertainment center actually costs. As an estimator, you may or may not know all the costs. The reason I know that is because my next-door neighbour is a certified industrial construction estimator as well. He probably does out and outbids you. lol because I have not asked him if I could use his name, I won't at this time.

I don't believe anyone in this city truly believes that the building will be the size of the Roger's Building (Skydome) or 1/10 the size of Trump Tower. I believe that most people believe the building will amount to a larger copy of the arenas we already have but will be newer with newer equipment. Of course I can't speak for everyone so I am sharing my own idea of what this building will be.

I agree anything EXTRA should not be considered part of the original budget. If it does get 1000 more seats, then council will have to be held accountable for that decision and not you or the people who created the original plan.

[Dogma]

However, those are not the only costs are prop themselves into the overall costs. We need to look at all the Purchasing Costs, etc.I do not understand this statement?

I have also been in purchasing for over 10 years...I understand there are some things that will need to be purchased - from the "budgeted amounts".

From Ms. Kennedy's assumptions and the overall financial business plan....

The larger ticket items and the 80/20 rule applied - should have been in the original budget - i.e ice equipment machines, hockey boards, HVAC, interior finish etc. labour...i.e (80 percent of the budget is spent on 20 % of the material / labour.)

In this case because of its multipurpose components I would say it would be closer to 70 /30. - or less.

Which by the way could end up costing less than what was "budgeted". Depends also on payment terms to. i.e net 30 or 2% net 60.

We have a long way to go before anyone assumes we are over budget or underbudget. I personally would delay the decision for an extra 1000 set capacity until they look at the costings - or amount of labour hours, capital equipment purchase etc. up to the 1/3 - or more of project life. If possible before a decision is to be made for the installation of extra foundation work for seating.

Further; anticipated schedules in to the spring (weather) etc -there maybe some cushion there for savings. Thus, they could put them (budget) towards the 1000 seats.

Purchasings "job" is to get the best value from a "budgeted figure". It is certainly not unusual to find better value for goods and services after the project gets on its way! I am sure you will see cost savings through this project in some "budgeted areas".

[Lydia]

I am glad you expanded on the costs. I agree with you fully on your recent posting. I believe there will be saving now that the spring and summer are up and coming.

It does put t shiver in my spine when the word ONLY CAPITAL COSTS were budgeted. I am sure you have it all under control, however, the above words does not make one comfortable.

I still say that if the entire costs is 50 to 60 million, we will be lucky and only then will i say good job. All I ever want from a budget is to know what the highest amount a project will cost less unforseen labour issues. You are correct that it is the labour costs that amount to the highest expense, however, the highest is consultant fees. lol lol lol.

[Dogma]

This is a brief update on the Kingston Regional Sports and Entertainment Centre. These updates will be issued to you on a monthly basis and can be used for circulation to your membership.

Construction Update

The steel shell of the sports and entertainment centre will continue to take shape over the next few months. Concrete walls have also started to rise on the east side of the site.

Fundraising Campaign

DVA Navion International Fundraising Consultants have completed the plan for the fundraising campaign. The leadership team is currently being recruited and the consultant and staff are working on recognition plan, case of support as well as campaign design to be completed in April.
Although the campaign has not been officially launched, the City has been accepting donations since March 7. To date approximately $26,000 in private donations has been received. The campaign office will be operational this month and will be located on the main floor at City Hall. The official campaign launch is planned for May 1, 2007.

Provincial Government Agreement

The city has signed the agreement with the Province for the $4 million grant to the project.

Suite Lottery

On March 21, Arcturus/SMG held the suite lottery at Fort Frontenac. Of the 41 individuals and companies that expressed an interest and provided a deposit towards a suite last summer, 33 were represented at the suite lottery. Some of the deposit holders also chose to partner and share in a single suite lease. At the lottery each deposit holder was given a ticket. Tickets were drawn in random order to allow deposit holders to choose their preferred location from the remaining available suites. In the end 25 of the 26 available suites had been chosen. Everyone that provided a deposit last summer and still was interested, received a suite. Since the lottery, one company has withdrawn its deposit. Also at the event, a second lottery was held to determine the waiting list position of anyone interested in a suite that didn't provide a deposit last summer. Arcturus/SMG is currently contacting those on the waiting list to secure a commitment for the remaining two suites.

Suite prices range from $22,875 per year for a 10-seat, centre-ice "platinum" suite to $15,000 for an eight-seat corner suite. Suites also accommodate some standing room and include one or two parking spaces at a municipal lot near the centre. Suite holders must purchase season tickets for each "hard seat" in the suite. Standing room tickets can be purchased for additional guests as necessary. Suite holders will also be granted first right of purchase for other events at the centre.

Suites are also being constructed for the Kingston Frontenacs and the naming rights sponsor for their respective purposes and one suite will be held for community organizations to use free of charge, bringing the total suites in the sports and entertainment centre to 29.

Naming rights

The advertisement for the Expression of Interest in naming the sports and entertainment centre was published in the Whig Standard and Kingston This Week in March. Local companies had until March 31 to submit a letter of interest directly to Wakeham and Associates Marketing. Wakeham and Associates has confirmed that there has not been any submission of interest from local companies. Wakeham has contacted all leads provided by the City.
Next steps for the naming rights process:

Confirmation of all assets to be included - April 6
Completion of sales materials design - April 13
Packages issued to potential clients- April 15
Meetings with potential clients commence - April 16
Review and report of activities and strategies - June 30On March 20, Council approved a process to allow some public involvement in the naming of the facility. This information will be forwarded to Wakeham and Associates.

Contact

If you have any questions regarding the Kingston Regional Sports and Entertainment Centre please contact Lanie Hurdle, director of project development at 613-546-4291 ext. 1231 or by e-mail at lhurdle@cityofkingston.ca (lhurdle@cityofkingston.ca).

[Lydia]

This is excellent. Keep up the great reporting information. Good job Dogma.

[Dogma]

The Conference Board of Canada last week reported that 19,000 manufacturing jobs are expected to disappear in Ontario this year, exacerbating the loss of more than 140,000 manufacturing jobs
(one in eight) in this province since 2002.

It is an economic erosion that has grown alarming, particularly outside of major cities.

"I think it's one of the most significant problems, if not the most significant problem, facing rural and small- town, small-city Ontario today," said Bob Runciman, the Conservative MPP for Leeds-Grenville.

"I look at it from the perspective of where are the good jobs going to be in the future?" Runciman said.

"And most of us, I'm sure, want our kids and grandkids to stay in the communities where they grew up."

The erosion extends not only to jobs but also to the local property tax base, which hampers the ability of local councils to provide public services and fuels the growing depopulation in rural and small communities.

"You travel across Eastern Ontario, and I suppose it applies to most of Ontario - if you look at the polls, this doesn't seem to be a real blip on the polls," Runciman said.

"People aren't really grasping the gravity of the situation yet, I don't think, and what it means for the future.

"I think it's an extremely serious issue and one the current government doesn't seem to have any plan to deal with or any willingness to deal with."

His party and leader, John Tory, have called for the decentralization of government services - moving civil service jobs out of Toronto and into smaller communities - as a partial solution to the economic destabilization taking place in Ontario's smaller communities, and for innovative measures to target rural and regional job loss.

Sandra Pupatello, the minister of Economic Development and Trade, said the government has invested substantially to save manufacturing jobs across Ontario and to build infrastructure to help communities retain jobs.

"In the Smiths Falls example, they know what they need in terms of infrastructure in their community and one big item was actually in the budget, and that was the launch of their hospital," Pupatello said.

However, the bulk of government cash has gone to help urban manufacturing, such as the auto sector.

Meanwhile, about a half-million visitors tour the Hershey factory every year and spend their cash at local businesses in Smiths Falls.

There is no way the town could recoup that loss.

Stick a pin in a map of Ontario and you'll find a similar story just about everywhere.

Too little has been done over the past decade to seriously address the waning economic health of this province's smaller centres.

Those who live in these communities, in this election year, should insist that change.

- James Wallace is Queen's Park bureau chief for Osprey News Network. Contact the writer at www.osprey media.ca.

[Lydia]

This certain does present a realistic and troubled reality of our economic development. As I read all this, my mind is asking questions like this:

How could our wonderful leaders ALLOW this to happen? If it is their fault that jobs are leaving us for other countries, why are we paying hugh wages to those leaders to ruining our country/cities?

Why is it that our Leaders do not have the skills sets to bring industry to this country?

We have the people to work. We have highly educated people with unbelievable skill sets and YET we are losing everything??

What's wrong with this picture.

How, I'm not looking for work, however, who or which group is going globally to inform the world about how good we have it?? Do we even buy products made in our country any more?

If we are not proud of our country/cities, why would anyone wish to come here. Why are we training doctors to go to the states?? Why are we training people to go to other countries to earn millions?? Why are we allowing Canadian build companies to vanish?

Hum, I just wonder if all this is done deliberately by our Leaders? If you ask the ordinary citizen/worker, you will learn that they are asking the same questions as I have.

Maybe we should take another look at those people making the higher wages and not doing anything to earn it, and ask ourselves, do we really need those people. I see those leaders earning 25 to 30% more than the ordinary citizen/worker.

How, I don't mind paying higher wages to anyone but I certain want their services and skills to IMPROVE my life/society. It isn't the $ figure that counts here it is the worth that I get from those $ figures.

[Dogma]

How could our wonderful leaders ALLOW this to happen? If it is their fault that jobs are leaving us for other countries, why are we paying hugh wages to those leaders to ruining our country/cities?

Politicians are powerless when it comes to this new economic situation.

Population demographics, aging workforce, traditional union wages/benefits, corporate ownership, more competition, wider use of "western" technologies, limited Government incentives targeted for the auto sector, energy costs, our high dollar are all factors and linked to new Global economic trends.

Kingston as a "regional center" needs to attract people and capital. (The LVEC is one way to do this)


Economic gap between cities and country growing

James Wallace
Queens Park - Tuesday, April 17, 2007

By James Wallace
Osprey News Network

Economic growth in Ontario’s smaller communities will lag behind growth in Toronto and surrounding cities during 2007, according to the latest Conference Board of Canada outlook.

“In general, most cities in Ontario are struggling because of weakness in manufacturing,” Alan Arcand, an economist with the board, told Osprey News.

Ontario’s overall economic prospects are expected to “remain tame” this year with the provincial economy forecast to expand by just a 1.9 per cent, a negligible improvement on the “paltry” growth in gross domestic product seen in 2006 and the weakest real per capita growth of any province in the country.

Meanwhile, 19,000 manufacturing jobs are expected to disappear from communities across the province this year, exacerbating the loss of more than 140,000 manufacturing jobs (one in eight) here since 2002.

“The manufacturing sector is still restructuring and we expect that to continue this year, more restructuring and unfortunately more job losses in most cities we cover in Ontario,” Arcand said.

In fact, Oshawa (up 2.7 per cent) and Toronto (up 2.5 per cent) are the only two Ontario cities to rank in the top half of growth leaders nationally among larger Canadian cities, finishing seventh and tenth respectively.



Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Saskatoon and Vancouver were the top five economic performers ranked by the Conference Board, with growth rates ranging from 4.2 per cent to 2.9 per cent this year.

Economic growth in part is fueled by population growth.

While Toronto, Oshawa and a growing ring of Greater Toronto Area communities including Barrie are expanding in population, cities and towns outside the GTA are experiencing flat or negative growth.

“It’s the old urbanization story,” Arcand said. “Canada is urbanizing and you see strong growth in the big cities.”

Kingston is an example studied by the Conference Board this spring where population growth is lagging behind most other large urban centres in Ontario, limiting potential economic growth in that community.

Economic growth in Kingston has hovered around the 2 per cent mark in each of the last three years but manufacturing and the construction in the city “has been in a tailspin” recently and overall economic growth is expected to slow to 1.5 per cent this year before picking up again in 2008.

“What you’re going to get there is growth but slow growth and it’s going to be steady,” Arcand said.

“If you like stability, you’re probably going to like Kingston because that’s what you’re going to get,” he said.

Sudbury has seen similar slow growth although that city “has turned around a bit thanks to the resurgence of mining,” Arcand said.

“Some of the slow growth you’ve seen the last few years, it’s been fairly wide spread in the province,” he said.

It largely reflects restructuring in Ontario’s manufacturing sector, a higher dollar and lower tourism in communities such as Niagara and Windsor.

“Once that restructuring is done, you’ll see stronger growth,” Arcand said.

“That should also lead to a modest recovery in 2008 as we create a leaner and meaner and more competitive manufacturing sector.”

The Conference Board predicts Ontario is expected to enjoy better days in 2008, however, with real output forecast to expand by 3.3 per cent.

NDP leader Howard Hampton questioned the suggestion that Ontario’s manufacturing sector will bounce back, arguing Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government has done little to help the sector recover.

“We know the McGuinty government has no plan for the forestry sector, they have no plan for the steel sector,” Hampton said.

“Their plan for the auto sector is basically all Toyota, all Honda as we shed more and more auto parts plants and as we shed more and more jobs at Chrysler, Ford and General Motors,” he said.

“We may see some growth in the financial sector but the financial sector will basically benefit Toronto and that’s about it,” Hampton said.

“But in the forest sector, in the steel sector and in the auto parts sector there is nothing on the horizon that will lead companies to make further investments in Ontario,” he said.

Meanwhile, rapidly escalating electricity bills (that account for 30 per cent of costs in sectors such as auto, forestry and steel) are killing jobs, Hampton argued.

“Some are moving to Quebec, some are moving to Manitoba, some are moving to the southern U.S., some are moving offshore but this is not happening by accident,” Hampton said.


James Wallace is Queen’s Park Bureau Chief for Osprey News Network. Contact the writer at jwallace@ospreymedia.ca.

[Lydia]

Thanks Dogma,
The posting above certain does show why we are having difficulties. We keep talking about Gross National Product. My question is WHAT PRODUCT?? Do we even have a small product let alone a gross one??? lol lol

The article indicates the importance of touristism. Here we decided to get rid of a tourist dream. (Campground on Lake Ontario which was in the heart of the city). If I am not mistaken, Orlando has one for Disneyworld which has a campground on their property. ( I can remember exactly what it is called Disneyworld or Disneyland)

Toronto has a Canada Wonderland Amusement Park with waterslides etc. Heck we can't even be guaranteed a 50meter Pool attached to the Multiplex.

In order to have a Gross National Product, we need to start developing and manufacturing products. I wonder when that will happen?

At least one thing is clear, Dogma, the LVEC will improve the opportunity to have more people coming to our city. You are completed dedicated to this project and I totally admire you sticking with your project. I might torment you about it but I do admire your dedication and determination.

[Dogma]

I agree with you completely Ontario Park could and should be utilized.

Unfortunately; the City did not take care of it for the public or the leasees of the amusement park owners. So, they moved.

i.e washroom were filthy, old infastructure, no basic services for campers hookup etc. The water front - not desingated swimming area and unsupervised...change areas were pathetic.

The business operator finally just moved to a better serviced location.

There has generally been no "park plan" in place for many years.

Its just like Cat. Creek - really the only decent outdoor centre and trails etc around. (Dupont for years dumped their nylon ends - right next door at their "landfill", into a marsh and right beside the creek.

Now they and a Chinese company are digging it out.. to reuse, recycle it.

Belle Park - is a landfill right beside the river!

Most of the other parks in the City have old infastructure and now new regulations for safety / i.e swings, play equipment.

That costs money, i.e budgets of parks are not generally a high spend line item.

Tons of things have come to roost in Kingston and generally for North America i.e environmental laws and the costs associated.

So, the only way to "update", "dig up" or revitalize our parks is through spending money - millions now. = higher taxes.

And the "updated equipment must be done"

Comes out of the budget! But, if we have no industry tax base..?

Who pays?

[Lydia]

You are totally correct Dogma, there isn't any industrial tax base or if we have any it is eroded.

Solution:

Rather than looking at what we don't have. Let's improve on what we STILL have. Let's seriously look at growth in this city and how to grow responsibly. Not everything needs to be just down town or the west end. Lets look at every district and think about what advantages the district has as well as what enterprise would suite that neighbourhood.

We have 12 Districts, Lets try and get 12 different industries, one in each district. Lets try to see what eash district has to offer to the quality of life as well as career possiblities.

Rather than scarificing quality of life for careers, why not harmonize both.

I for one am willing to learn more and brat more about any company or industry that is willing to improve our lives and create an industry that can complete globally. I know there are companies here in Kingston that are doing things globally or are known globally. The problem with all that is that we are not PROMOTING or supporting them the way we should be. Then we get upset when companies leave.

I believe that the reason we have no industrial tax base is because there are many home-based companies that are not taxed as industrial businesses. I can't blame them. At least we have them.
However, in the long run we are ruining our city because we don't have enough of a tax base. I wonder if there could be a compromise??

[Dogma]

I believe that the reason we have no industrial tax base is because there are many home-based companies that are not taxed as industrial businesses. I can't blame them. At least we have them.

Sure most business (not all) I would say are so great here..

But, thats not really the point.

It's a global issue and frankly a union/competitive issue.

The corporations and groups and investments can move much faster than Government.

Even now we have the Gates Foundation that has more money and can get many things done much faster than any Government, or UN could ever do.

There is a real public sense that companies can get things done. (PPP's is one example) of this historical change i.e such as the LVEC.
Or fighting poverty, aids etc. Just wait next Warren Buffet, and Ted Turner etc. will be stopping wars.

The information age and international interlinked monetary system has changed how we do business.

If China catches a cold we will sneeze! Its as simple as that.

But, remember Canada is a VERY tiny part of the world economy (barely a blip) And once the oil sands gets bottled up with Kyoto..we will be a back bencher on the world scene.

We should be thinking of how Ireland turned things around. Both economically and socially.

Kingston remember has lost 5000 (good paying jobs) and replaced some with (low paying jobs) i.e call centres.

Thats not what I would say being aggressive enough - thats getting by. I also believe Kingston's thinking is rather isolationist, likes its location and local inexperience with other larger cities.

Most "Kingstonians" have lived here most of there life. And have had tradional institutional/union positions and/or local connections to industrial work here for mostly people straight of highschool! Its a different world now. Basic education is a masters degree! Or specialized market trend diploma.

I cannot see Kingston suddenly being so business savy or have the capital (if your a small business) or that fast/willing to change that much to this new reality. Population growth is low, the young are moving away to better opportunities, taxes here are the highest in the province, and there is no "good" career work!

Local business (one man bands) they hardly make ends meet here anyways. And certainly not for the long run...I know most of the business organisations, and they are mostly retail.

I also know many small, medium size business owners that depend heavily on large "local" and regional manufacturing business that we have lost.

And they all have downsized.

No, it is a major problem here. And tiny business will NOT cut it. Sorry we need industry and less seasonal type of service business.

[Lydia]

I received this in an e-mail recently. Canada might be a blimp to some, however we still have much to be proud off. We should promote ourselves better to attract businesses and also to develop industries.

The e-mail deplicts the people in Kingston as well. Keep in mind Dogma that there is a world order that wants to have one currancy and wants to have complete control of it. There are only a hand ful of people who make the decisions for what happens to everyone on this planet.

A British news paper salutes Canada . . . this is a good read. It is funny how it took someone in England to put it into words...
Sunday Telegraph Article From today's UK wires: Salute to a brave and modest nation - Kevin Myers, The Sunday Telegraph LONDON -

Until the deaths of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan , probably almost no one outside their home country had been aware that Canadian troops are deployed in the region. And as always, Canada will bury its dead, just as the rest of the world, as always will forget its sacrifice, just as it always forgets nearly everything Canada ever does.

It seems that Canada 's historic mission is to come to the selfless aid both of its friends and of complete strangers, and then, once the crisis is over, to be well and truly ignored.

Canada is the perpetual wallflower that stands on the edge of the hall, waiting for someone to come and ask her for a dance. A fire breaks out, she risks life and limb to rescue her fellow dance-goers, and suffers serious injuries. But when the hall is repaired and the dancing resumes, there is Canada, the wallflower still, while those she once helped
Glamorously cavort across the floor, blithely neglecting her yet again.

That is the price Canada pays for sharing the North American continent with the United States , and for being a selfless friend of Britain in two global conflicts. For much of the 20th century, Canada was torn in two different directions: It seemed to be a part of the old world, yet had an address in the new one, and that divided identity ensured that it never fully got the gratitude it deserved. Yet its purely voluntary contribution to the cause of freedom in two world wars was perhaps the greatest of any democracy.

Almost 10% of Canada 's entire population of seven million people served in the armed forces during the First World War, and nearly 60,000 died. The great Allied victories of 1918 were spearheaded by Canadian troops, perhaps the most capable soldiers in the entire British order of battle.

Canada was repaid for its enormous sacrifice by downright neglect, it's unique contribution to victory being absorbed into the popular Memory as somehow or other the work of the "British."

The Second World War provided a re-run. The Canadian navy began the war with a half dozen vessels, and ended up policing nearly half of the Atlantic against U-boat attack. More than 120 Canadian warships participated in the Normandy landings, during which 15,000 Canadian soldiers went ashore on D-Day alone. Canada finished the war with the third-largest navy and the fourth-largest air force in the world.

The world thanked Canada with the same sublime indifference as it had the previous time. Canadian participation in the war was acknowledged in film only if it was necessary to give an American actor a part in a campaign in which the United States had clearly not participated - a touching scrupulousness which, of course, Hollywood has since abandoned, as it has any notion of a separate Canadian identity.

So it is a general rule that actors and filmmakers arriving in Hollywood keep their nationality - unless, that is, they are Canadian. Thus Mary Pickford, Walter Huston, Donald Sutherland, Michael J. Fox, William Shatner, Norman Jewison, David Cronenberg, Alex Trebek, Art Linkletter and Dan Aykroyd have in the popular perception become American, and Christopher Plummer, British.

It is as if, in the very act of becoming famous, a Canadian ceases to be Canadian, unless she is Margaret Atwood, who is as unshakably Canadian as a moose, or Celine Dion, for whom Canada has proved quite unable to find any takers.

Moreover, Canada is every bit as querulously alert to the achievements of it's sons and daughters as the rest of the world is completely unaware of them. The Canadians proudly say of themselves - and are unheard by anyone else - that 1% of the world's population has provided 10% of the world's peacekeeping forces. Canadian soldiers in the past half century have been the greatest peacekeepers on Earth - in 39 missions on UN mandates, and six on non-UN peacekeeping duties, from Vietnam to East Timor, from Sinai to Bosnia.

Yet the only foreign engagement that has entered the popular on-Canadian imagination was the sorry affair in Somalia , in which out-of-control paratroopers murdered two Somali infiltrators. Their regiment was then disbanded in disgrace - a uniquely Canadian act of self-abasement for which, naturally, the Canadians received no international credit.

So who today in the United States knows about the stoic and selfless friendship its northern neighbour has given it in
Afghanistan? Rather like Cyrano de Bergerac , Canada repeatedly does honourable things for honourable motives, but instead of being thanked for it, it remains something of a figure of fun.

It is the Canadian way, for which Canadians should be proud, yet such honour comes at a high cost. This past year more grieving Canadian families knew that cost all too tragically well.

*********************
Please pass this on to any of your friends or relatives who served in the Canadian Forces or anyone who is proud to be Canadian; it is a wonderful tribute to those who choose to serve their country and the world in our quiet Canadian way.

[Dogma]

Your article certainly (pulls on some heart strings) duly from our close cousins.

Indeed glorifying war such as Vimy is not what I would say as necessarily "honourable". In any case; alot of people believe theses examples of "sacrafices as being honourable", but most of it was just defending our British commonwealth inlaws, and farm boys looking for some adventure.

Amazing how the "British" article did not discuss the fire bombing of Dresden killing 100,000 and wiping out civilians defenceless & "old world" city with our "3rd largest airforce".

Not to mention how we go abroad to "help" but cannot solve our 100 year long domestic problems for our first nations.

Indeed; there is some truth that we are a blip on both the international "stage" and screen, but many countries are in that audience comparing itself to the American film industry.

Its economically speaking I was suggesting we are a blip compared to the EU or the American's. That was my point.

And most importantly the global exchange of information and monies (for Kingston) has changed the way business operate and more importantly how Government operates.

It is not enough to say small or micro enterprises will compensate for 5000 good paying, good pension positions along with "millions" lost for goods and services to these local companies evaporates.

We need large business here. Period. Eh!

[Lydia]

Wow YOU ARE CANADIAN. lol

I fully agree that we do need a hugh industry here in Kingston. Some one who I admire totally mentioned that we should have a Research Park in this city. I agree fully with him.

He indicated that all the hugh industrial companies of today actually started at grass rooted research parks. When I think of Research Parks I mean incumbaters where companies of different developing products got together and shared a site or a building and helped each other to gain contacts, gain experience, gain expertise. All this happening while they are actually running their businesses.

I agree with you Dogma there is too much protectionism in this city. I am reminded of an economist who told me about investing in stock. We all think we are going to invest SAFELY in GICS, BONDS, etc. Yes these are SAFE stocks however, once you take away the rate of inflation, rate you pay for selling your investment, are you even gaining capital. Your original investment is SAFE but you are losing due to prices of everything you buy is going up and at an higher price than you are paying today. This can also apply to being SAFE with your businesses. You also need to gather a core of people whom you trust and who trust you. No one is SAFE without others. So protecting your business isn't always the greatest concept if you wish to grow and thrive. As one business you only have a business with limited growth, however, if you gather a group of people with similiar businesses and you work together and vary your products, you and your group develop an industry which can go world wide.

We have what I consider one of the most highly education institutions here in this city. Surely we could develop a research park.

[Dogma]

Lydia; you know we love you for your optimism. And I agree there is some potential in your "Entrepreneurial Centre". Surely; you would think Kedco could build on something through Queen's business school, or R&D development. I have worked in a setting similar to what you have described. And indeed there are many benefits for the individual sole proprietors. But, it’s not after the war. When most companies of any stature could flourish, and be as protected against foreign rivals as they were then. Most large corporations that exist to day came from that environment. Although IT, health sciences are still a growth opportunity.

The mergers that we have also been seeing are to capture market share. In countries, in share price and business efficiencies = ROI. GM owns Saab, Ford owns Volvo...many medium size companies are getting together to be more competitive.

Unfortunately - as I heard this morning on NPR - GM's past is catching up with them, unions to. Each car costs GM $ 1,300.00 before M/U just to cover the 130 billion dollar pension/health plan for their employees. Toyota's pension costs them $ 300.00. Toyota employees get paid $ 2.00 less an hour.

And no one is buying GM's "designs" - frankly other than their trucks American cars are rather boring and impractical!

They need to reinvent themselves truly. And its a big ship and older union employees so to reinvent will be trying.

That’s why they are using other desperate tactics such as retro car designs and various concessions from their unions.

But, it’s an opportunity for their competitors. And the outcome? the playing field will be more realistic. (Although Japan does not let too many imports in still.) The Germans are also not far behind as are many Eurpean based companies.

The notions you have are very well thought out. And may I say very "accountable". The dream of your centre for research maybe doable. I know there is something afoot at Queen's for an of site location in partnership with a private, public firm.

PPP's are definitely the way to go.

But, I am optimistic myself that something will happen in the next few years here to bring back some value added paiyng work. Its easy to be optimisic seeing through retirement colour glasses. Its quite another when your looking for good paying work.

Lets hope its for the longer term.

[Lydia]

[B][Its easy to be optimisic seeing through retirement colour glasses. Its quite another when your looking for good paying work/B]


Ah, my friend, you are correct. While people work they are deep in thought of how to survive in today's world. However, when you are retireed, you see things in a better light and you also have something you didn't have while you were working.

Time to be a pain in someone's side until they relent and you then have TIME to change the world to make it better. lol lol

Also keep remembering, You get what you ask for. If you choose Negative you get what you ask for. Therefore, be Positive and attract Positive energy an growth. (So much for my zen moment. lol lol)

[Dogma]

"Realistic" - is todays "word (work) of the day in Kingston".

See todays article....by a typical young eager Kingstonian - and "educated" worker.


And recently on CKWS: How the new union rep. for Kingston admits ...

.."per capita Kingston has the most Government jobs in Canada".

Question:

Are unions admitting that they "create jobs or meerly try to retain local historically established ones"

- I want that union leaders job! - seems pretty easy to have only one goal.


Great for ones that have guarranteed jobs, not so great for the young ranks wanting to coming through.
- with probably much higher education levels, skills
- more energy = higher productivity (better ROI)
- invested more in their education than many existing union employees


To stay in Kingston or to leave?

Amy Axford
Letters to the Editor - Thursday, April 26, 2007 Updated @ 7:10:39 AM

The bright lights of the city seem to call out to people my age. It is not just the sophistication and adventure that draws us but the chance to employ the education and training we have paid dearly for as soon as possible.

It seems one of the biggest issues plaguing the young adults of Kingston is opportunity. We go off to postsecondary education (some of us just down the road), return after graduation and resume the work we've done since we were 16, waiting for a "real" job. It seems the market for entry-level positions is lacking, even though K-Town is experiencing growth. The conundrum lies in the fact that Kingston is such an appealing place to live in so many aspects, except for the job market

Even I have been tempted by opportunities outside the Limestone City. One week I decided to move to Calgary, the next to Burlington, the next to Oshawa - and, for a moment, to Nunavut. My mother, who came to Kingston from England for one year to work and has stayed for more than 30 years, almost cried. "Are you sure you want to leave?" she asked.

The fact is, I'm not sure. It's not just my friends and family I'd miss but the everyday aspects of life in Kingston. We are spoiled by our waterfront, our proximity to nature, our historic buildings and our warm community. We come to think that every neighbourhood should be dotted with aged trees and every restaurant should offer free refills. I like running into my high school French teacher at yoga, finding out that the accountant at my boyfriend's new workplace is an old family friend and recognizing the faces of former classmates in the pages of the Whig.

The should-I-stay-or-should-I-go dilemma has come down to patience. A lot of my peers don't have the stamina to hold out for that job - that golden opportunity. We listen to the rumours about new business coming to town and the complicated circumstances under which these firms are turned away. We are pacified by forecasts that predict mass retirements "any day now." Frustration mounts, and, sure enough, we begin to rank full employment over small-town loyalty.

To say that I am a "townie" would be putting it lightly. It almost feels treasonous to be considering a move away from the city that raised me. Still, as more and more people my age are forced to make the choice, the option of leaving remains in the forefront of my mind. Whereas I have prioritized Kingston life, perhaps my beloved city should consider my peers and me for a moment.

- Amy Axford was born and raised in Kingston and is a recent graduate of the State University of New York at Potsdam teaching program. She is a member of the Whig-Standard's Community Editorial Board.

[Dogma]

I came across this article that speaks to the "head verse the heart of the public" interest groups, that may relate to issues such as the LVEC.


The article speaks to many assumptions and hearsay that many "naysayers" groups (like KCAL) cherry pick as their main arguments against such a project.

On politics and public interest

The Whig-Standard
Opinion Columns - Saturday, May 19, 2007 Updated @ 11:54:16 PM

COLUMN

By Andrea Gunn



Too often, people complain

about the outcomes of public consultation exercises either because a) they didn’t participate during the exercise and now want to have their opinions heard or b) they don’t like the outcome of the public consultations because their opinions were not reflected in the outcome.

It is impossible to get 100-per-cent agreement on any issue. Any group or exercise that purports to achieve the will of the people‚ is unrealistic. The purpose of public consultation should be to get a cross-section of viewpoints, so that an issue can be seen from all angles.

If there is a great deal of consensus on an issue, so much the better. It makes the job of the people charged with putting vision into action much easier.

In real life, you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

Elected officials, too, have limitations on what they are able to do – limitations they don’t always recognize. This is true of politicians at any level, from municipal to federal.

Civic issues often need to be dealt with over the longer term, over several political terms of office. But politicians tend to frame issues reactively and in shorter time frames, within their elected terms of office.

They go for the short-term wins. Sadly, it is often not enough to act sensibly; politicians need to be seen to act on behalf of their constituents. Merely weighing various interests, seconding sensible decisions and acting in the best interest of the community isn’t nearly as exciting, and won’t necessarily get you any votes in the next election.

There’s nothing wrong with a politician taking on the little cases, like examining the need for the stop light in a neighbourhood where auto traffic is perceived as increasing.

Ambition does not equal ability and good intentions are no substitute for well-rounded knowledge.

There’s an old cliche that you can’t fight city hall, as if city hall were an entity unto itself instead of an organization composed of trained, experienced local residents who have chosen to go into public service.

Framing the interests of the community against the perceived interests of bureaucrats is terribly short-sighted. Ad hominem arguments are those which go after the person with whom one disagrees, rather than the logic of their position.

Too often, when public debate is aired about local issues, the dialogue is *****ened with ad hominem attacks.

I’d like to see public discourse on these issues be a little more mature, so that whatever the outcome, whether it is a policy, bylaw or building, the process isn’t littered with ***** shots and personal attacks.

It’s a lot easier to live with an outcome you don’t completely agree with, if you can see that the process used to get to the outcome was rational, and professionally handled.


Andrea Gunn works in policy and communications. She is a member of the Whig-Standard’s community editorial board.

[Lydia]

Framing the interests of the community against the perceived interests of bureaucrats is terribly short-sighted. Ad hominem arguments are those which go after the person with whom one disagrees, rather than the logic of their position.

Holy Cow, finally I have met someone whom I agree with completely. My wish is that every district has a community association available to them with a wonderful councilor like Robert Matheson. At the Loyalist Cataraqui Community Association there are members who are polar opposites on their opinions (something like you and me Dogma lol lol) who present their views and allow others to do the same, we are able to have discussions and question each other on WHY we think the way we do.


Now on the mature level, I can't say i agree with Andrea because quite frankly I enjoy teasing you Dogma. lol lol

There is a HUGH DIFFERENCE between torment and attacking. The problem sometimes is that when we feel attacked we don't call the person on it. That is why I thank you Dogma for telling me where we agree and disagree.

[Dogma]

So...does that mean your "association" will donate to the LVEC?

I would think if they have opinions they can (as the article suggests) get past some of their passion and rally to be positive about the future project?

It will be interesting to see this project as a success and the ones that will still dig in - and not consider:

Civic issues often need to be dealt with over the longer term, over several political terms of office. But politicians tend to frame issues reactively and in shorter time frames, within their elected terms of office.

[Lydia]

Actually Dogma, getting past the passion and starting to support the LVEC did come up during May 20th meeting. We may be a small group but we are a informed, passionate, and active group. Heck we even have a social activist on our team as well as a great environmentalist Two people whom I never taught that I would have much in common with but found out that I really like these people. We have over 40 members now and really want more residents to join us.

Two of our members spoke directly to the fact that it is time to start supporting the LVEC project by not continuing to down play the project. The cost of events will prove to be the main signal as to whether the LVEC becomes an excellent project or a white-elephant.

As long as the LVEC isn't just for entertainment ONLY, but becomes a conference centre as well as an entertainment location, it will be a place that Kingston people will support and be proud off.

Seniors WILL NOT be willing to pay over $25 to $50.00 for events in this city, at least according to some of our members. Not because of the fees but because they won't pay that and still have to deal with the parking issues.

A suggestion that came up was the idea of Park and Ride shuttle that MIGHT, I say MIGHT be a solution to the parking issue.

:D :D As for me, I'm saving my money for the 50 meter pool. :D :D :D

[Dogma]

I see that many would support this entertainment /conference centre if they do wish to see Barry Manilow - or the Antique Road Show...

I would guess they would pay for admissions that would not "tax" their pension retirement incomes per year.

Parking - most events are at night and Basics is right there!

So, parking will not be such a "passionite" issue it seems to be assumed now. And most people having trouble walking can be dropped off and over time all these seemingly HUGE issues - will look silly once reality sinks in.

Although as the article says: there will aways be the negative ones.

In any case - I will look for you at the next Olympics for the 100 meter freestyle. Don't forget to turn at 50m!

[Lydia]

And most people having trouble walking can be dropped off and over time all these seemingly HUGE issues - will look silly once reality sinks in.


Wait a minute, We were told that there WOULD BE NOOOOOOOOOOO DROP OFFS because of the size of the sidewalks and two way traffic that would be there.

Have they changed their minds regarding dropping off people at the entrance??

I do agree with you that alot of these issues will seem very silly later.

No Ill just continue pass the 50 m line and go straight to the LVEC. :D :D

[Dogma]

Crane strike slows arena; Walkout won't hurt multiplex

Brock Harrison
Local News - Thursday, May 24, 2007 @ 00:00

A provincewide strike involving crane and other heavy-equipment operators threatens to halt construction on Kingston's downtown arena and entertainment centre.

Yesterday, about 2,000 crane operators walked off job sites across Ontario, hampering hundreds of construction sites and threatening the construction progress of Kingston's $46-million facility, which is already a month behind schedule.

Work continued at the construction site yesterday without crane operators.

A spokesman for EllisDon, the company overseeing construction of the facility, says the strike will definitely delay the project but couldn't say by how much.

"It will slow [construction] down at first and then it's going to pretty much stop it," said Mike Smith. "We'll do our very best to work around it but its certainly going to impede the project. "

The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, is campaigning for more money and against proposed changes from a five-day, 40-hour work week to a four-day, 40-hour work week, the Canadian Press reports.

More labour disputes that could further delay construction are also on the horizon.

Other trade unions with workers on the site are in strike position and Smith says the operating engineers' walkout could compel them to follow suit.

The work stoppage comes at a bad time for the downtown arena project. Steel framing is in full swing and much of the work involves hoisting massive steel beams into the air. It can't be done without cranes.

"We're pretty much getting into the heart of the structure right now," Smith said. "We can safely say this is going to delay things." Cynthia Beach, the city's commissioner of growth, wasn't prepared to forecast a definite delay for the project, saying the city does anticipate potential schedule snags, including labour disputes.

"It's normal that in a big project like this that we have to look at adjusting schedules if there are these types of problems," Beach said.

The facility is supposed to be ready by January 2008. The first scheduled event is a Jan. 18 Ontario Hockey League regular season game between the Kingston Frontenacs and Ottawa 67s.

Beach says the city will do everything it can to meet that opening day target. "We're going to be monitoring things. It all depends on how long the strike will be," she said.

On the bright side, Beach says the downtown entertainment centre is the only big-ticket city-run project that will be affected by the strike.

Steel work on the west-end multiplex has wrapped up and cranes have been moved off the site, she said.

"The multiplex won't be affected," Beach said.

It is unknown how long the strike might last. No further negotiations between the union and the employers' bargaining agency were scheduled as of yesterday.

Private employers offered workers pay hikes of less than three per cent annually for the duration of a three-year contract. Workers want more, given recent projections of an expanding economy and higher demand for services.

"The less than three per cent was soundly rejected by the membership. Certainly, we're seeking more than that," said Ken Lew, manager of labour relations for the union local. bharrison@thewhig.com (bharrison@thewhig.com)

[Dogma]

Yesterday, about 25 labourers walked off the job at the site of the downtown arena.

Project manager Lanie Hurdle said the strike shouldn't cause any major impacts to timelines for the project.

The strike affects some of the masonry work at the site, but doesn't impact the erection of the structural steel, Hurdle said.

That could change if the union forms a picket line or the strike goes on for a long time, she said.

"We'd have to revise the schedule to see how certain work can be done.

The critical item is the structural steel," Hurdle said.

No picket lines have been set up in the city, but Claro said picket lines are possible if other workers do work labourers perform. He said so far that hasn't happened.

Labourers specialize in excavation, site preparation, debris removal, cement finishing and traffic control.

If the strike causes the project to miss its deadlines, the city can't make builder EllisDon speed up construction.

Under terms of the contract signed with EllisDon, deadlines would be extended for the length of any delays occurring from labour disputes, strikes or lockouts. The city wouldn't have to pay for any additional costs due to the strike.

The clause that allows the city to force EllisDon to speed up construction doesn't apply if delays were caused by labour disputes. Hurdle said EllisDon has informed the city there were no delays as a result of the crane operator strike.

The arena is to be completed this December and open early next year. The crane operator strike halted work at the Ravensview water treatment plant, said Jim Keech, president of Utilities Kingston. Yesterday, work continued on the site despite the strike because there was no picket line, he said.

"If it does carry on, it will have an impact," he said.

With the strike in day one, the walkout hadn't affected the timelines for work at the west-end multiplex, the Grand Theatre or projects at Queen's University.

"It hasn't done anything to slow down work," said Barclay Mayhew, project manager for the multiplex.

He said the multiplex has some form work being done right now, but the majority of work deals with mechanical and electrical installations.

Labourers also walked off the job at the construction site for the new police headquarters on Division Street.

Project liaison officer Const. Greg Harbec said the strike hadn't seriously affected work. Much of the form work, which labourers specialize in, was completed last year, he said.

Now workers are putting the finishing touches on the interior of the building. Move-in is set for September.

"At this point, it is affecting us, but not critically," Harbec said. "If it is prolonged, it may affect us critically." jpress@thewhig.com (jpress@thewhig.com)

[Lydia]

I figured there would be labour problems on these projects. I hope that the cost of these were taken into consideration when the business plan was developed.

Am I correct Dogma, that strikes were considered in the forecasting?

[Dogma]

I don't know if the labour "hours" for a strike has been built in to the budget. But, it really is about O.T (overtime) to make up the hours (if required) are the real costs to consider. Or do they just shift the less critical work (labourers) - to later next weeks work? Probably this will be the result. +/_ = null.


But, did you know that - other than Iceland - Canada has the highest number of strikes in the world. A total of 143 days of lost work on average.

30% of our work force is organised as a union, and a history of militant action.

Productive country - you think? Maybe it just that we don't want to get in our cars on a Feb. morning?

[Lydia]

Just for the record, I am not or have i ever been associated with a Union.

However, coming from Cape Breton Island which had a history of slavery and strikes, I can understand both sides of the issue.

At one time, If a person was willing to work hard and would be productive that person had a job for life. Then came the mentality that this was not good enough. The rule would be "no matter how loyal or good you were, the person who did the least would be let go no matter what the reason was."

My friend was a head hunter and worked for a company which stated: "No matter how good you did your job, or how hard you tried, there was always something wrong with you" This would give the reason to fire the person who produced least." When quotas are gotten rid of and a person didn't need two or three jobs to earn a living, then and only then will unions never be needed.

Unfortunately, Dogma, like it or not the people who believe in unions are only saying " Since a company is earning a good profit for itself, it should also share some of that with the workers who actually do the work"

Now comes organized Labour Unions which I find to be the same as businesses and strike just for the sake of striking. I am TOTALLY against that concept and I would never support them.

So there you have it. Which side would you be on? Personally I would much prefer to work for myself and provide a service that companies would be willing to pay for.

Anyway, hopefully things will work out for the best on both sides.

[Dogma]

I understand and appreciate the reasons behind having a union that represents the "rights" of Canadain workers.

I also understand 70% of workers are NOT organised.

That being said - the "traditional" relationship i.e business owners / managers verses traditional unions needs to change.

And in many cases because of global competitiveness and a different way of thinking about work. i.e no life time jobs, Internet commerce, movement of labour and the decline of manufacturing, to more a service economy ..the unions are under increasing pressure not to provoke strikes or labour issues. They are starting to understand the world has and is changing quickly and they need to adapt.

But, the employers also have a responsibility to workers and (in most cases) want to have a stable and happy work force.

In this case - we see a boom going on in construction and a scare skilled work force.

Union contracts also expire and should be negotiated in good faith.

But, as you know (history lives in workplace culture) Ontario teachers, hospital and construction workers in particular have always been the "leaders" of strike positioning. Harris Government and the liberals tried to control the teachers work loads etc. And looked what happens. And these (all) are essential services...

I agree unions are important, I agree employers are important.

I wonder though if "employees" union or not - if they truly understand how businesses actually develop
(and I am talking about decent business, not mom and pop's)

- how are run , what and where their cash flow supports in the business or iemployee training?

If they (like accountants do) could understand the basics - I wonder if they would be so militant at the "bargaining table"?

Self employment (like owners of large companies) has its benefits you eluded to, but, it has its challenges and misconceptions such as the balance for long term success - of having great interpersonal, sales personalities and business economic, and front line experience, and supportive happy in their "jobs" employees & frankly thick skin to weather economic change.

I wonder? If they really get it?

[Lydia]

No they don't get it Dogma. Neither employees or employers of hugh companies really get it. The people who own mom and pop business are the only ones who truly get it.

I hate employees who hide behind unions and never put in a decent day's work especially don't get it.

I hate employers who get rid of people just because they didn't meet a quota.

People like yourself and myself who have or had businesses fully realize one thing. If you are a ""BOSS"" you have your customers telling you what to do. If you are an employee you ONLY have a Boss to report too.""

How I fully realize that there are companies who do get it and hire the best people to have their businesses thrive. There are excellent employees who provide excellent skills and are willing to work for the good of businesses.

I like keeping a positive thought about 90% of the workforce and businesses. It is that 10% who don't get it. Instead of worrying about globalization, I would love to say that the world becames our oyster and we have more chances to prove our worth as people.

[Dogma]

I agree that "entrepenuers" (mom & pops) have an idea of their responsibilities in the work force in general.

Unfortunately; for most of these businesses they fall short when it comes to employee relations. i.e renumeration, training and EHS.

Infact; I would say they usually are at "higher risk" because of two issues
-unrealistic business plans for their market trends and not enough capital, during the break even period.

That combination usually effects the productivity and goals of both the company and its employees.

Unions tend to be with fairly large companies that are incorporated.

Sole proprietors (mom & pops) usually are not unionized and do not have the same risks that come with unions..
i.e strikes, productivity, EHS.

Unions are a challange because they tend to be less flexable than a non unionized shop especially in terms of productivity and wage concessions.

Sure mom & pops have their own risks and do understand the "client is king". Although personally I disagree with this notion in most cases. The days of fat margins are long gone, when at that time companies (retail) used the service characteristics of a business to promote "the client is always right". Now, profit margins are tight and client haggling and free incentives should/is be a thing of the past. The client is not always right and should not be looked upon in these terms, although politely.

Employees here generally are not trained very well and I would take note that most are probably discouraged, underpaid and with downsizing less committed to their company. I would also suggest most are at work because of the lifestyle choices they have made in this society of consumption beyond their means. The "dream" of retiring these days by many in their 50's is VERYpopular. A generation ago this would be looked down upon as being lazy.

The 6/49 is a very popular incentive for many middle class folks.

By the way, is it me or are we the only ones left on this site since the elections?

[Dogma]

A Kingston haunting; Work on the downtown arena has stopped - and it's all because of the boo-birds

TONY HOUGHTON
Forum - Thursday, June 07, 2007 @ 07:00

As I walk back home, a couple of times a week, from the downtown LCBO, I feel it is my civic responsibility to check up on how things are going with our downtown arena, now under construction. I have always been surprised at how few men seem to be actually working on it, having counted a maximum of five at any one time. Yet progress is, demonstrably, being made. Or it was until recently, when I counted only four men at work before I saw a sign that said "I.U.O.E. Local 793 On Legal Strike."
The man on legal strike, it appears, was the crane driver, whose function is obviously a critical one if the arena is to have a roof. And worse was to come. This last week - and, ironically - after the crane driver had gone back to work, everyone else walked off the job, which means the arena may have a roof but no floor.
Coming from the north of England, as I do, I understand about strikes, so I thought I should talk to the men and hear their grievances.
At first they seemed reticent, but when I persisted I discovered the awful truth: It's not a money problem. The men don't want to work on the arena site because it is haunted.
This is, perhaps, not unsurprising. Kingston, after all, is one of Canada's most haunted towns. Books have been written about its ghosts. The Haunted Walk enthralls tourists on summer evenings, and soon the official Haunted Walk may include the unfinished arena.
But what spirits in their right minds would haunt a hockey arena? The ghosts of Count de Frontenac's men, angry that the arena should be built on the site of their fort, even if the hockey team that will play there was named for their boss?
No.
As I talked further to the men, most of whom were clearly nervous and kept glancing behind them, the astonishing truth dawned on me: The ghosts that haunt the arena are those of city councillors who voted against building it, and who still haven't given up on stopping construction, by fair means or foul. Clearly, you don't have to be dead to haunt a place.
"I was in the portable toilet," said one man, "when I became aware of a presence. You can bet I was out of there with my business half done."
I concluded from his description of the presence that it was probably that of ex-councillor Rick Downes, a vehement opponent of the arena. "I would have been mayor of this city," insisted the presence, "if it wasn't for Kevin George. He split the vote, and Harvey got his second term. I would have killed the arena. I don't care how many contracts had been signed. As it is, what's left for me? The priesthood? Perhaps. I've been told I'm excellent Pope material. But what about my wife? My kids?"
Another worker had dropped his jackhammer in horror when confronted by the unrepentant spectre of Councillor Steve Garrison. "I accused the mayor of misleading the public," insisted the phantom. "Harvey kept saying the business plan was sound, there would be no increase in taxes. I still don't believe him, but what if he's right? What if this thing's a huge success? What if they build new hotels and condos and parking garages downtown, like he says they will? Where does that put me? With egg on my face, right? Don't let this happen to me. Cease work. Strike."
The ghost of Councillor Vicki Schmolka, I learned, had chased a pipefitter halfway up Queen Street. "If this thing works," the phantom told him when she caught up to him, breathless, outside the Plaza Hotel, "my chances of being elected mayor next time round are nil, after the hard time I gave Harvey about wanting a new motion to stop construction. Yet the city deserves me, and I deserve the city. Harvey just wants a hockey arena, but I have higher ambitions for Kingston. I want this to be a great place to live. With better schools, and green places. A decent place. A safe place."
The apparition of Councillor Bill Glover had cornered an electrician who had fled to the frozen pizza aisle of Food Basics, where the phantom tried to explain that he wouldn't necessarily have voted for a motion to cease construction, and had supported it out of mere gallantry. "Personally, I would love to watch the Fronts play in a great new arena," he said. "But if they build it, how can I possibly show my face? Harvey, Leonore Foster, Ed Smith, Floyd Patterson - they're the ones who pushed it through. They'll have my guts for garters."
The electrician, understandably confused, climbed into a case of McCain's pizza.
My next interview was an even more disturbing one, if that can be conceived. "I hear a jangling of chains," the man told me, before going on to describe a figure who could be none other than the long-suffering ghost of Mayor Harvey Rosen himself, jangling his chains of office. "What am I to do with these people?" the mayor's ghost complained. "Every Tuesday night for the next four years I have to spend explaining to them that they can't revisit decisions made by the previous council. I'll tell you, there are times when I wish Kevin George hadn't run, and Downes would have got in, and then I could have got on with my life. Besides, they should have built the arena at Anglin Bay. That's what my committee recommended. And it's not too late to stop construction here and move it over. Maybe I'll allow Schmolka's motion, but with an amendment."
Where will this end? If the arena is, one day, completed, will the ghosts of councillors who voted for the arena, and in its current location, turn out in force to cheer on the Frontenacs? Will former councillor Floyd Patterson step onto centre ice and drop the ceremonial first puck? Will the spectre of Councillor Leonore Foster appear in the officials' changing room and send them scurrying out onto the ice in their long johns? Will the ghost of Councillor Ed Smith cheer each goal scored by the Fronts, assuming the Fronts do occasionally get the puck over the goal line? Will the ghosts of letter-writers to the Whig-Standard jostle the public on their way in, insisting the place should have been built north of the 401, and that it's not too late to move it?
It's a fair bet. The arena has provoked such intense emotions that it's impossible to believe they won't continue long after the place is built. If Fort Henry - over the building of which, so far as I know, there was no debate - can have its share of ghosts, surely our downtown arena can have lots more. And we'll know who they are.
- Tony Houghton is a Kingston freelance writer and a former member of the Whig-Standard's Community Editorial Board.

[Lydia]

The men don't want to work on the arena site because it is haunted.


AHHHH finally an attraction. lmao Justly fitting the LVEC. I pray more spirits fill this arena. I just hope it gets filled with the GOOD SPIRITS of people who will pay a big $ for the events to make it profitable. Not the BAD SPIRITS of all the people who were against it. :D:D:D:D

[Dogma]

If people are looking for proof how entertainment facilites - work and the stat's to support trends in the industry...

1) These facilities are "multuifunctional, not just a ice rink, not just a concert facility.

2) Disposable income has risen over the past several years

3) Economy is doing well, 3 percent growth on average, low inflation, resource based economy expected to outpace

4) See conclusions - if you are not interested in all the supporting data?


Consumer demand for entertainment services outside the home


Printable PDF version (http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/63F0002XIE/63F0002XIE2006050.pdf)
By Yusu Guo and Don Little, Service Industries Division, Statistics Canada
Introduction

In recent years, Canadians have spent more on entertainment. For their homes, demand has risen for such goods as home entertainment systems and computers. Households are also spending more on home services such as cable television and high speed Internet access1 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn1).
There has concurrently been an increase in demand for entertainment outside the home. The entertainment services outside the home discussed in this article include attendance at movie theatres, performing arts and spectator sports events and admissions to heritage institutions. Expenditures on these services comprised 0.44% of the average household's overall spending budget in 2003, up from 0.41% in 1998. This shift in preferences and growth in incomes, population and prices caused the consumer market for entertainment services to expand from $2.3 billion in 1998 to $3.2 billion in 2003, an increase of 41%. Entertainment services outside the home not only entertain those that consume them, they also offer platforms for performers and bring cultural as well as natural heritage closer to Canadians.
As the entertainment services market grows, the providers of these services face the challenge of retaining existing customers and attracting new ones. Knowing how consumer characteristics such as income, type of household and geographical location affect entertainment spending can enable suppliers to better provide and market their services.
Based primarily on Survey of Household Spending (SHS) data from 1998 and 2003, this article examines changes over the five year period in household spending on entertainment services. In particular, it investigates how spending changed in each province and for some household types and each household income quintile. It also looks at how the performance of entertainment services providers may have been affected by such changes.
Methodology (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#1)
Spending on entertainment services highly dependent on income levels (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#2)
Increased spending and profits for movie theatres (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#3)
Spending on live performing arts highest in Ontario (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#4)
Quebecers spend the least on live sporting events (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#5)
Household spending at heritage institutions is low and growing slowly (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#6)
Conclusion (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#7)
References (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/references.htm)
Methodology

Most data for this article come from the 1998 and the 2003 results of the Survey of Household Spending (SHS), an annual cross sectional survey, that looks at the spending behaviour of Canadian households. The SHS defines a household as members currently residing at the same dwelling as the reference person. A household may consist of a family or group of unrelated persons or of a person living alone. Household members who are temporarily absent on the reference day are considered part of their usual household.
The SHS yields detailed information on household spending on goods and services, including food, shelter, household operations, transportation, recreation and other items. Detailed demographic information is also available for categories such as household type, age, income and geographical location.
The sample sizes for the 1998 and 2003 surveys were 20,236 and 23,896 respectively. Households from the ten provinces and three territories were covered. However, since much of the territorial data from 1998 are incomplete, the territories are excluded from this article's geographical comparisons.
Note that, because this article focuses only on “out of home entertainment services”, it excludes expenditures on such things as “in-home” entertainment goods (for example, televisions, computers, etc…) and services such as the Internet, cablevision, satellite and video and DVD rentals.
The per household expenditures cited on this article also include spending outside the province of residence and even spending outside of Canada. It is also important to note that some of the industry revenue figures include revenues earned from foreigners, as well as revenues coming from sources other than households.
This article also presents statistics for the industries providing entertainment services outside the home. These results mostly come from the following Statistics Canada surveys:

Motion Pictures Theatre Survey
The Annual Survey of Arts, Entertainment and Recreation
Performing Arts Survey


http://www.statcan.ca/Images/up.gif (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#top)
Spending on entertainment services highly dependent on income levels

The average household spent $2732 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn2) on entertainment services outside the home in 2003, a 31% increase from 19983 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn3). This growth far exceeded the 13% increase in the all-items Consumer Price Index and the 19% growth rate of household spending on all goods and services. The rapid growth for entertainment services occurred, in part, because the average household's income rose in real terms during the same period4 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn4). Entertainment services are discretionary commodities rather than necessities, therefore spending on these services may well increase whenever incomes rise.
Of the $273 that households spent on entertainment services, over two-thirds was spent attending movies ($106 per household) and live performing arts ($85). The remainder went to paying to see live sporting events and visiting heritage institutions, on which households spent an average of $46 and $36, respectively (Chart 1).
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/images/chart.gif (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/charts/chart1.htm)

Chart 1 Household spending on entertainment services outside the home


In terms of growth from 1998 to 2003, spending on live sports events grew most rapidly (44%). Conversely, average household spending at heritage institutions grew at the slowest rate (13%).
Spending on entertainment services outside the home is relatively low in the Maritime provinces, where the average household spent an average of $189. This result is not surprising as household incomes in the region are considerably below the national average.
In contrast, Ontario households, on average, spent $326 on entertainment services in 2003 - the most in Canada (Chart 2). They were followed by households in Alberta ($323), and British Columbia ($271). The fact that households in these same provinces had Canada's highest before-tax incomes further supports the contention that entertainment services spending is highly discretionary and therefore dependent on income.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/images/chart.gif (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/charts/chart2.htm)

Chart 2 Average household spending on entertainment services outside the home


So too does spending data for various income quintiles. On average, households in the highest income quintile5 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn5) spent $602 in 2003 on entertainment services, more than triple the $191 average for other households. In contrast, households in the lowest income quintile spent an average of $70.
Even though households in the lowest quintile increased their entertainment services spending by 43% from 1998 to 2003 (this was highest growth rate for any quintile) they accounted for only one-twentieth of the entire consumer market for entertainment services outside the home in 2003.
Among various types of households, on average, couples with children spend the most ($384 in 2003) in part because these households are large and earn the highest incomes6 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn6). However, on a per capita basis, their expenditures are not out of the ordinary. At the other end of the spectrum, one-person households aged 65 and over by far spent the least ($67). This is likely due to their relatively low incomes and the fact that these households comprise only one person. Moreover, mobility constraints can make it more difficult for some of these individuals to enjoy entertainment outside the home, and those that so do frequently benefit from seniors' discounts on prices.
From 1998 to 2003, the fastest-growing segment of the consumer market for entertainment services outside the home was lone parent households. These households accounted for $169 million in entertainment services spending in 2003, up 61% from 1998. There are two probable explanations for this rapid growth. First, incomes for these households rose relatively rapidly and, second, the number of lone parent households has risen since 19987 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn7).
While incomes, province of residence and household type all affect levels of entertainment services spending, there are other factors that might also influence consumer behaviour, but which are beyond the scope of this article. For example, cultural differences and rural versus urban demand differences could also affect spending levels on entertainment services.
http://www.statcan.ca/Images/up.gif (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#top)
Increased spending and profits for movie theatres

Movie theatres earned operating revenues of $1.2 billion, largely from consumers, in 2003/04, up 47% from 1998/998 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn8). Most of this increase was due to attendance growth and higher ticket prices. Ticket prices, on average, increased by 37% from 1998/99 to 2003/04 to reach $7.45. Even though ticket prices rose far more rapidly than the overall rate of inflation9 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn9), this did not dampen consumer demand. Movie attendance rose by 8% from 1998/99 to 2003/04 to reach 118.2 million.
The average household spent $106 going to the movies in 2003. Residents of Ontario and Alberta are the most avid movie goers, spending around $120 per household. In contrast, residents of Newfoundland and Labrador ($65) and Saskatchewan ($62) spent the least. In terms of growth from 1998 to 2003, household spending at movie theatres rose most rapidly in Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Ontario.
Among the income quintile groups, average per household expenditures to attend movies increased most rapidly for the two highest quintiles. By 2003, these households accounted for nearly two-thirds of spending at movie theatres, even though they comprise just half of Canada's population10 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn10).
Of the various types of households, lone parent households spent an average of $127, and their 1998-2003 growth rate of spending to attend movies was the highest of all household types. Couples with children spent the most attending movies (an average of $161 per household). This is not surprising due to their large household size, high income levels, and the frequency with which young people attend movies. Age indeed appears to affect movie attendance. For example, individuals aged 65 and over who live alone spent the least ($18) on attending movies.
Mega-theatres have become more popular in metropolitan areas at the expense of smaller theatres, increasing the number of screens nationwide while cutting down the number of theatres. Movie theatres earned operating profits of $52.7 million in 2003/04, a healthy rebound from a loss of $28.9 million in 2001/02. The industry's profits improved because of the success of larger theatres. In contrast, medium and small theatres incurred losses of varying degrees in 200311 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn11).


http://www.statcan.ca/Images/up.gif (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#top)
Spending on live performing arts highest in Ontario

The average Canadian household spent $85 to attend live performing arts events in 2003. Spending varied by region. Ontario households spent the most ($105) while households in the four Maritime provinces spent the least. Although they comprise 7.5% of Canada's population, Maritimers accounted for only 4.4% of all household expenditures on performing arts.
The availability of performing arts performances may impact spending. The number of performing arts companies varied widely across the country. Quebec and Ontario had 242 and 216 companies respectively, compared to 36 in all the Atlantic provinces combined. Among the Western provinces, most companies were located in British Columbia (63) and Manitoba (53).
Large disparities in spending on live performing arts also exist by income group. For example, the highest income quintile made up nearly half of the consumer market even though it comprised only one-fifth of Canada's households. Although spending on live performing arts rose most rapidly from 1998 to 2003 for low income households, these households still spent only $20 attending such events, on average, in 2003. In contrast, highest income households spent an average of $204.
Unlike with the other entertainment services covered by this article, couples with children did not lead the way in average household spending on performing arts events. Instead, couples without children spent the most ($102 per household) on such outings. Perhaps this occurs because many of the events in this category are held by theatre, opera and dance companies, whose performances may be of relatively less interest to younger audiences. This age factor may also explain why performing arts events received the lion's share of the entertainment services spending budget of households headed by people aged 65 and over.
The average household spent 29% more on performing arts in 2003 than it did in 1998. This helped to boost the performing arts industry's operating profit margin from 3.5% to 7.1% from 2000 to 200312 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn12).
http://www.statcan.ca/Images/up.gif (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#top)
Quebecers spend the least on live sporting events

On average, households spent $46 on live spectator sports in 2003, up 44% from 1998. Most of this growth occurred due to higher prices rather than increased attendance, as evidenced by an increase of about 40% in the Consumer Price Index for live spectator sports during the same period.
Alberta households spent the most ($75 per household) to attend live sports events while those in Quebec spent the least ($25). From 1998 to 2003, total household expenditure on live sports events rose in every province except Manitoba and New Brunswick.
For income groups, the biggest increase in spectator sports spending came from the lowest income quintile. Nevertheless, as with performing arts, by far the biggest consumers of live sports events are the highest income households. In 2003, they spent nearly nine times as much on spectator sports as households in the lowest income quintile. Indeed the highest income quintile accounted for nearly half of all household spending on spectator sports.
Among the different household types, couples with children led the way, spending an average of $66 attending live sports events in 2003. This was 54% higher than the average spent by such households in 1998. In contrast, one-person households aged 65 and over spent an average of just $6 on live sports in 2003.
The providers of spectator sports services13 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn13) earned operating revenues of $2.2 billion in 2003, a 29% increase from 1998. The industry tends to lose money every year. In 2003, for example, it had an operating profit margin of -3.4%, although this is an improvement from the -8.2% result recorded for 200114 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn14).

Household spending at heritage institutions is low and growing slowly


Printable PDF version (http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/63F0002XIE/63F0002XIE2006050.pdf)

By Yusu Guo and Don Little, Service Industries Division, Statistics Canada

Introduction

In recent years, Canadians have spent more on entertainment. For their homes, demand has risen for such goods as home entertainment systems and computers. Households are also spending more on home services such as cable television and high speed Internet access1 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn1).
There has concurrently been an increase in demand for entertainment outside the home. The entertainment services outside the home discussed in this article include attendance at movie theatres, performing arts and spectator sports events and admissions to heritage institutions. Expenditures on these services comprised 0.44% of the average household's overall spending budget in 2003, up from 0.41% in 1998. This shift in preferences and growth in incomes, population and prices caused the consumer market for entertainment services to expand from $2.3 billion in 1998 to $3.2 billion in 2003, an increase of 41%. Entertainment services outside the home not only entertain those that consume them, they also offer platforms for performers and bring cultural as well as natural heritage closer to Canadians.
As the entertainment services market grows, the providers of these services face the challenge of retaining existing customers and attracting new ones. Knowing how consumer characteristics such as income, type of household and geographical location affect entertainment spending can enable suppliers to better provide and market their services.
Based primarily on Survey of Household Spending (SHS) data from 1998 and 2003, this article examines changes over the five year period in household spending on entertainment services. In particular, it investigates how spending changed in each province and for some household types and each household income quintile. It also looks at how the performance of entertainment services providers may have been affected by such changes.
Methodology (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#1)
Spending on entertainment services highly dependent on income levels (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#2)
Increased spending and profits for movie theatres (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#3)
Spending on live performing arts highest in Ontario (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#4)
Quebecers spend the least on live sporting events (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#5)
Household spending at heritage institutions is low and growing slowly (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#6)
Conclusion (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#7)
References (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/references.htm)
Methodology

Most data for this article come from the 1998 and the 2003 results of the Survey of Household Spending (SHS), an annual cross sectional survey, that looks at the spending behaviour of Canadian households. The SHS defines a household as members currently residing at the same dwelling as the reference person. A household may consist of a family or group of unrelated persons or of a person living alone. Household members who are temporarily absent on the reference day are considered part of their usual household.
The SHS yields detailed information on household spending on goods and services, including food, shelter, household operations, transportation, recreation and other items. Detailed demographic information is also available for categories such as household type, age, income and geographical location.
The sample sizes for the 1998 and 2003 surveys were 20,236 and 23,896 respectively. Households from the ten provinces and three territories were covered. However, since much of the territorial data from 1998 are incomplete, the territories are excluded from this article's geographical comparisons.
Note that, because this article focuses only on “out of home entertainment services”, it excludes expenditures on such things as “in-home” entertainment goods (for example, televisions, computers, etc…) and services such as the Internet, cablevision, satellite and video and DVD rentals.
The per household expenditures cited on this article also include spending outside the province of residence and even spending outside of Canada. It is also important to note that some of the industry revenue figures include revenues earned from foreigners, as well as revenues coming from sources other than households.
This article also presents statistics for the industries providing entertainment services outside the home. These results mostly come from the following Statistics Canada surveys:

Motion Pictures Theatre Survey
The Annual Survey of Arts, Entertainment and Recreation
Performing Arts Survey
http://www.statcan.ca/Images/up.gif (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#top)
Spending on entertainment services highly dependent on income levels

The average household spent $2732 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn2) on entertainment services outside the home in 2003, a 31% increase from 19983 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn3). This growth far exceeded the 13% increase in the all-items Consumer Price Index and the 19% growth rate of household spending on all goods and services. The rapid growth for entertainment services occurred, in part, because the average household's income rose in real terms during the same period4 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn4). Entertainment services are discretionary commodities rather than necessities, therefore spending on these services may well increase whenever incomes rise.
Of the $273 that households spent on entertainment services, over two-thirds was spent attending movies ($106 per household) and live performing arts ($85). The remainder went to paying to see live sporting events and visiting heritage institutions, on which households spent an average of $46 and $36, respectively (Chart 1).
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/images/chart.gif (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/charts/chart1.htm)

Chart 1 Household spending on entertainment services outside the home


In terms of growth from 1998 to 2003, spending on live sports events grew most rapidly (44%). Conversely, average household spending at heritage institutions grew at the slowest rate (13%).
Spending on entertainment services outside the home is relatively low in the Maritime provinces, where the average household spent an average of $189. This result is not surprising as household incomes in the region are considerably below the national average.
In contrast, Ontario households, on average, spent $326 on entertainment services in 2003 - the most in Canada (Chart 2). They were followed by households in Alberta ($323), and British Columbia ($271). The fact that households in these same provinces had Canada's highest before-tax incomes further supports the contention that entertainment services spending is highly discretionary and therefore dependent on income.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/images/chart.gif (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/charts/chart2.htm)

Chart 2 Average household spending on entertainment services outside the home


So too does spending data for various income quintiles. On average, households in the highest income quintile5 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn5) spent $602 in 2003 on entertainment services, more than triple the $191 average for other households. In contrast, households in the lowest income quintile spent an average of $70.
Even though households in the lowest quintile increased their entertainment services spending by 43% from 1998 to 2003 (this was highest growth rate for any quintile) they accounted for only one-twentieth of the entire consumer market for entertainment services outside the home in 2003.
Among various types of households, on average, couples with children spend the most ($384 in 2003) in part because these households are large and earn the highest incomes6 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn6). However, on a per capita basis, their expenditures are not out of the ordinary. At the other end of the spectrum, one-person households aged 65 and over by far spent the least ($67). This is likely due to their relatively low incomes and the fact that these households comprise only one person. Moreover, mobility constraints can make it more difficult for some of these individuals to enjoy entertainment outside the home, and those that so do frequently benefit from seniors' discounts on prices.
From 1998 to 2003, the fastest-growing segment of the consumer market for entertainment services outside the home was lone parent households. These households accounted for $169 million in entertainment services spending in 2003, up 61% from 1998. There are two probable explanations for this rapid growth. First, incomes for these households rose relatively rapidly and, second, the number of lone parent households has risen since 19987 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn7).
While incomes, province of residence and household type all affect levels of entertainment services spending, there are other factors that might also influence consumer behaviour, but which are beyond the scope of this article. For example, cultural differences and rural versus urban demand differences could also affect spending levels on entertainment services.
http://www.statcan.ca/Images/up.gif (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#top)
Increased spending and profits for movie theatres

Movie theatres earned operating revenues of $1.2 billion, largely from consumers, in 2003/04, up 47% from 1998/998 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn8). Most of this increase was due to attendance growth and higher ticket prices. Ticket prices, on average, increased by 37% from 1998/99 to 2003/04 to reach $7.45. Even though ticket prices rose far more rapidly than the overall rate of inflation9 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn9), this did not dampen consumer demand. Movie attendance rose by 8% from 1998/99 to 2003/04 to reach 118.2 million.
The average household spent $106 going to the movies in 2003. Residents of Ontario and Alberta are the most avid movie goers, spending around $120 per household. In contrast, residents of Newfoundland and Labrador ($65) and Saskatchewan ($62) spent the least. In terms of growth from 1998 to 2003, household spending at movie theatres rose most rapidly in Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Ontario.
Among the income quintile groups, average per household expenditures to attend movies increased most rapidly for the two highest quintiles. By 2003, these households accounted for nearly two-thirds of spending at movie theatres, even though they comprise just half of Canada's population10 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn10).
Of the various types of households, lone parent households spent an average of $127, and their 1998-2003 growth rate of spending to attend movies was the highest of all household types. Couples with children spent the most attending movies (an average of $161 per household). This is not surprising due to their large household size, high income levels, and the frequency with which young people attend movies. Age indeed appears to affect movie attendance. For example, individuals aged 65 and over who live alone spent the least ($18) on attending movies.
Mega-theatres have become more popular in metropolitan areas at the expense of smaller theatres, increasing the number of screens nationwide while cutting down the number of theatres. Movie theatres earned operating profits of $52.7 million in 2003/04, a healthy rebound from a loss of $28.9 million in 2001/02. The industry's profits improved because of the success of larger theatres. In contrast, medium and small theatres incurred losses of varying degrees in 200311 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn11).



Spending on live performing arts highest in Ontario

The average Canadian household spent $85 to attend live performing arts events in 2003. Spending varied by region. Ontario households spent the most ($105) while households in the four Maritime provinces spent the least. Although they comprise 7.5% of Canada's population, Maritimers accounted for only 4.4% of all household expenditures on performing arts.

Conclusion

The average household's spending on entertainment services outside the home rose by nearly one-third in nominal terms from 1998 to 2003, a period in which the all-items Consumer Price Index rose by only 13%. Spending on such services is far more discretionary than it is necessary. Therefore, much of the 1998-2003 growth arose from a real increase in the average household's income level during that period, as well as an increase in the availability of these entertainment services.

The notion that entertainment services spending is discretionary is further supported by household spending breakdowns for the provinces and for different income quintiles. Spending is lowest in the Maritime provinces, where incomes are the lowest. The converse is also true, with households in high income provinces like Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia leading the way in entertainment services spending. Moreover, on average, households in the highest income quintile spent $602 in 2003 on entertainment services, while households in the lowest quintile spent an average of $70.

This relationship between income and spending exists to varying degrees for each of the four types of entertainment services outside the home that are covered by this article, suggesting that spending for each of these services is highly discretionary. Nevertheless, the performances of suppliers of the four types of services varied widely.
Movie theatres profited from increased demand. Despite a sharp increase in ticket prices, attendance and household spending at movie theatres continued to grow. Similarly, higher household spending helped the performing arts industry to double its operating profit margin from 2000 to 2003.

Conversely, although the average household increased its spending on live spectator sports by 48% from 1998 to 2003, the suppliers of these services continued to lose money.

Profit margins remained low for heritage institutions. Of the four entertainment services covered in this article, households spent the least on visiting heritage institutions, and this spending only rose marginally from 1998 to 2003.
Among the various types of households, couples with children spend the most on entertainment services by virtue of their relatively high household incomes and the fact that their households contain a higher than average number of people. In contrast, people aged 65 and over who lived alone spend the least. This may be due to their relatively low incomes, the fact only one person accounts for all spending, and seniors discounts. As well, health limitations may, in some cases, restrict opportunities for these people to gain access to entertainment services outside the home.

[Dogma]

If people are looking for proof how entertainment facilites - work and the stat's to support trends in the industry...

Remember our LVEC is:

1) "Multuifunctional, ...not just a ice rink, not just a concert facility.

2) Entertainment spending has risen over the past several years...

3) Economy is doing well, 3 percent growth on average, low inflation, resource based economy expected to outpace all others for 10 years +

4) See conclusions - if you are not interested in all the supporting data!


Consumer demand for entertainment services outside the home...


Introduction

In recent years, Canadians have spent more on entertainment.

For their homes, demand has risen for such goods as home entertainment systems and computers. Households are also spending more on home services such as cable television and high speed Internet access1 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn1).

There has concurrently been an increase in demand for entertainment outside the home. The entertainment services outside the home discussed in this article include attendance at movie theatres, performing arts and spectator sports events and admissions to heritage institutions.

Expenditures on these services comprised 0.44% of the average household's overall spending budget in 2003, up from 0.41% in 1998.

This shift in preferences and growth in incomes, population and prices caused the consumer market for entertainment services to expand from $2.3 billion in 1998 to $3.2 billion in 2003, an increase of 41%. Entertainment services outside the home not only entertain those that consume them, they also offer platforms for performers and bring cultural as well as natural heritage closer to Canadians.

As the entertainment services market grows, the providers of these services face the challenge of retaining existing customers and attracting new ones. Knowing how consumer characteristics such as income, type of household and geographical location affect entertainment spending can enable suppliers to better provide and market their services.

Based primarily on Survey of Household Spending (SHS) data from 1998 and 2003, this article examines changes over the five year period in household spending on entertainment services. In particular, it investigates how spending changed in each province and for some household types and each household income quintile. It also looks at how the performance of entertainment services providers may have been affected by such changes.

Methodology (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#1)
Spending on entertainment services highly dependent on income levels (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#2)
Increased spending and profits for movie theatres (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#3)
Spending on live performing arts highest in Ontario (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#4)
Quebecers spend the least on live sporting events (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#5)
Household spending at heritage institutions is low and growing slowly (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#6)
Conclusion (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#7)
References (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/references.htm)

Methodology

Most data for this article come from the 1998 and the 2003 results of the Survey of Household Spending (SHS), an annual cross sectional survey, that looks at the spending behaviour of Canadian households. The SHS defines a household as members currently residing at the same dwelling as the reference person. A household may consist of a family or group of unrelated persons or of a person living alone. Household members who are temporarily absent on the reference day are considered part of their usual household.

The SHS yields detailed information on household spending on goods and services, including food, shelter, household operations, transportation, recreation and other items. Detailed demographic information is also available for categories such as household type, age, income and geographical location.

The sample sizes for the 1998 and 2003 surveys were 20,236 and 23,896 respectively. Households from the ten provinces and three territories were covered. However, since much of the territorial data from 1998 are incomplete, the territories are excluded from this article's geographical comparisons.

Note that, because this article focuses only on “out of home entertainment services”, it excludes expenditures on such things as “in-home” entertainment goods (for example, televisions, computers, etc…) and services such as the Internet, cablevision, satellite and video and DVD rentals.

The per household expenditures cited on this article also include spending outside the province of residence and even spending outside of Canada. It is also important to note that some of the industry revenue figures include revenues earned from foreigners, as well as revenues coming from sources other than households.

This article also presents statistics for the industries providing entertainment services outside the home. These results mostly come from the following Statistics Canada surveys:

Motion Pictures Theatre Survey
The Annual Survey of Arts, Entertainment and Recreation
Performing Arts Surveyhttp://www.statcan.ca/Images/up.gif (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#top)
Spending on entertainment services highly dependent on income levels

The average household spent $2732 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn2) on entertainment services outside the home in 2003, a 31% increase from 19983 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn3). This growth far exceeded the 13% increase in the all-items Consumer Price Index and the 19% growth rate of household spending on all goods and services. The rapid growth for entertainment services occurred, in part, because the average household's income rose in real terms during the same period4 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn4). Entertainment services are discretionary commodities rather than necessities, therefore spending on these services may well increase whenever incomes rise.

Of the $273 that households spent on entertainment services, over two-thirds was spent attending movies ($106 per household) and live performing arts ($85).

The remainder went to paying to see live sporting events and visiting heritage institutions, on which households spent an average of $46 and $36, respectively (Chart 1).
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/images/chart.gif (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/charts/chart1.htm)

Chart 1 Household spending on entertainment services outside the home


In terms of growth from 1998 to 2003, spending on live sports events grew most rapidly (44%). Conversely, average household spending at heritage institutions grew at the slowest rate (13%).

Spending on entertainment services outside the home is relatively low in the Maritime provinces, where the average household spent an average of $189. This result is not surprising as household incomes in the region are considerably below the national average.

In contrast, Ontario households, on average, spent $326 on entertainment services in 2003 - the most in Canada (Chart 2). They were followed by households in Alberta ($323), and British Columbia ($271).

The fact that households in these same provinces had Canada's highest before-tax incomes further supports the contention that entertainment services spending is highly discretionary and therefore dependent on income.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/images/chart.gif (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/charts/chart2.htm)

Chart 2 Average household spending on entertainment services outside the home


So too does spending data for various income quintiles. On average, households in the highest income quintile5 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn5) spent $602 in 2003 on entertainment services, more than triple the $191 average for other households. In contrast, households in the lowest income quintile spent an average of $70.

Even though households in the lowest quintile increased their entertainment services spending by 43% from 1998 to 2003 (this was highest growth rate for any quintile) they accounted for only one-twentieth of the entire consumer market for entertainment services outside the home in 2003.

Among various types of households, on average, couples with children spend the most ($384 in 2003) in part because these households are large and earn the highest incomes6 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn6). However, on a per capita basis, their expenditures are not out of the ordinary. At the other end of the spectrum, one-person households aged 65 and over by far spent the least ($67). This is likely due to their relatively low incomes and the fact that these households comprise only one person.

Moreover, mobility constraints can make it more difficult for some of these individuals to enjoy entertainment outside the home, and those that so do frequently benefit from seniors' discounts on prices.

From 1998 to 2003, the fastest-growing segment of the consumer market for entertainment services outside the home was lone parent households. These households accounted for $169 million in entertainment services spending in 2003, up 61% from 1998. There are two probable explanations for this rapid growth.

First, incomes for these households rose relatively rapidly and, second, the number of lone parent households has risen since 19987 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn7).

While incomes, province of residence and household type all affect levels of entertainment services spending, there are other factors that might also influence consumer behaviour, but which are beyond the scope of this article.

For example, cultural differences and rural versus urban demand differences could also affect spending levels on entertainment services.

http://www.statcan.ca/Images/up.gif (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#top)
Increased spending and profits for movie theatres

Movie theatres earned operating revenues of $1.2 billion, largely from consumers, in 2003/04, up 47% from 1998/998 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn8).

Most of this increase was due to attendance growth and higher ticket prices. Ticket prices, on average, increased by 37% from 1998/99 to 2003/04 to reach $7.45.

Even though ticket prices rose far more rapidly than the overall rate of inflation9 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn9), this did not dampen consumer demand. Movie attendance rose by 8% from 1998/99 to 2003/04 to reach 118.2 million.

The average household spent $106 going to the movies in 2003. Residents of Ontario and Alberta are the most avid movie goers, spending around $120 per household. In contrast, residents of Newfoundland and Labrador ($65) and Saskatchewan ($62) spent the least. In terms of growth from 1998 to 2003, household spending at movie theatres rose most rapidly in Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Ontario.

Among the income quintile groups, average per household expenditures to attend movies increased most rapidly for the two highest quintiles.

By 2003, these households accounted for nearly two-thirds of spending at movie theatres, even though they comprise just half of Canada's population10 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn10).

Of the various types of households, lone parent households spent an average of $127, and their 1998-2003 growth rate of spending to attend movies was the highest of all household types. Couples with children spent the most attending movies (an average of $161 per household).

This is not surprising due to their large household size, high income levels, and the frequency with which young people attend movies. Age indeed appears to affect movie attendance. For example, individuals aged 65 and over who live alone spent the least ($18) on attending movies.

Mega-theatres have become more popular in metropolitan areas at the expense of smaller theatres, increasing the number of screens nationwide while cutting down the number of theatres. Movie theatres earned operating profits of $52.7 million in 2003/04, a healthy rebound from a loss of $28.9 million in 2001/02. The industry's profits improved because of the success of larger theatres. In contrast, medium and small theatres incurred losses of varying degrees in 200311 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/63-018-XIE/2006002/entertainment.htm#fn11).



Spending on live performing arts highest in Ontario

The average Canadian household spent $85 to attend live performing arts events in 2003. Spending varied by region. Ontario households spent the most ($105) while households in the four Maritime provinces spent the least. Although they comprise 7.5% of Canada's population, Maritimers accounted for only 4.4% of all household expenditures on performing arts.

Conclusion

The average household's spending on entertainment services outside the home rose by nearly one-third in nominal terms from 1998 to 2003, a period in which the all-items Consumer Price Index rose by only 13%. Spending on such services is far more discretionary than it is necessary. Therefore, much of the 1998-2003 growth arose from a real increase in the average household's income level during that period, as well as an increase in the availability of these entertainment services.

The notion that entertainment services spending is discretionary is further supported by household spending breakdowns for the provinces and for different income quintiles.

Spending is lowest in the Maritime provinces, where incomes are the lowest.

The converse is also true, with households in high income provinces like Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia leading the way in entertainment services spending.

Moreover, on average, households in the highest income quintile spent $602 in 2003 on entertainment services, while households in the lowest quintile spent an average of $70.

This relationship between income and spending exists to varying degrees for each of the four types of entertainment services outside the home that are covered by this article, suggesting that spending for each of these services is highly discretionary.

Nevertheless, the performances of suppliers of the four types of services varied widely.

Movie theatres profited from increased demand. Despite a sharp increase in ticket prices, attendance and household spending at movie theatres continued to grow.

Similarly, higher household spending helped the performing arts industry to double its operating profit margin from 2000 to 2003.

Conversely, although the average household increased its spending on live spectator sports by 48% from 1998 to 2003, the suppliers of these services continued to lose money. (Professional Sports events with high salary atheltic personnel) Not Intermediate rated or Memorial cup events)

Profit margins remained low for heritage institutions. Of the four entertainment services covered in this article, households spent the least on visiting heritage institutions, and this spending only rose marginally from 1998 to 2003.

Among the various types of households, couples with children spend the most on entertainment services by virtue of their relatively high household incomes and the fact that their households contain a higher than average number of people.

In contrast, people aged 65 and over who lived alone spend the least.

This may be due to their relatively low incomes, the fact only one person accounts for all spending, and seniors discounts. As well, health limitations may, in some cases, restrict opportunities for these people to gain access to entertainment services outside the home.

[Dogma]

KCAL latest "misinformation report" seems to guarrantee the limited LVEC cities, do not have any event plans or bookings for the public throughout the year.

Undoubtingly their bias nature, no research and lack of any experience with LVEC's (along with checking with their sports "guru" Ms. Adams) ....leads to such nonsense.

...they should have know that special event, tradeshows and indoor events do not typically happen through the summer months . When many, like joe public in the following LVEC's sited -are on summer holidays!

Most events - infact almost 80% of "scheduled events" happen in the months February to June, then again October to December.

Obviously OHL hockey, ice events , and some concerts remain as the main hosts for the balance of months.

It should also be noted KCAL: These "specific" cities are also NOT KNOWN as tourist designations (even through the year) let alone summer holidays!

KCAL also does not mention the Labatts Centre (inwhich Kingston's LVEC has many demographic similarities) has booked hundreds of events and has little capacity to afford more events!

See Labatts center events and the events Kingston will be Q3 & 4: Note: ...October - December!

Moody Blues, Loreena McKennett, Rush, Jethro Tull, Hillary Duff, John Fogerty and many, many broadway events ! http://www.johnlabattcentre.com/home.html


Yikes -

If KCAL only asked LVEC EDUCATED @http://lvec-showtime.blogspot.com/ (http://lvec-showtime.blogspot.com/)they would have know this.....and saved us alot of misinformation from total incompetents!



http://kcal.ca/Images/ArenasJulAugSep2007.jpg You're looking at the combined published calendars for July, August, and September 2007 for LVECs in Mississauga (http://www.mississauga.ca/portal/discover/hersheycentrecalendar) http://kcal.ca/offsitelnk.gif, Oshawa (http://www.generalmotorscentre.com/events.html) http://kcal.ca/offsitelnk.gif, Guelph (http://www.guelphsportsent.com/events/) http://kcal.ca/offsitelnk.gif, and Sault Ste-Marie (http://www.steelbackcentre.com/calendar.php) http://kcal.ca/offsitelnk.gif.
Four comparable buildings, four months.
Your looking at just 14 planned events in total, booked into 368 total possible event-days.
(That count includes 2 job-fair dates and one "walk of Fame" ceremony as "events").
That's reality: An average of 3.8% planned public booking for fabulous "events" in LVECs in four Ontario cities over three months, a full quarter.
The same company that runs Mississauga's Hershey Centre will run Kingston's LVEC. They have 7.6% planned public bookings for Q3 2007, this quarter, in Mississauga. Thank God this LVEC turkey wasn't built right on Kingston's waterfront, as originally conceived.

[Lydia]

Wow, Dogma, I see red here. You certainly are all aflame with ""I told you So, KCAL" attitude. Take a breath, relax.

I was impressed with all the information from 1998 to 2003 and the survey results. I can understand why it was necessary to have an LVEC and I agree fully why we should have one.

What got people like me upset was the WAY things were done not THAT they were done. I still stand by my ORIGINAL reason i didn't want the LVEC build where it is. I would still PREFER to have had one LVEC/Multiplex building with 4 ice pads and the capacity for larger crowds located at 401 and Division. However, since things are done, discussions are finished it is time to stand in back of our projects.

I do have some questions about the event calanders from Mississauga, Guelph and Oshawa and even John Labatts center itself. I probably have not understood it properly. According to the Guelph, Mississauga and Oshawa centers there are only 11 events in 3 locations over the next 3 months. I am ASSUMING (I hate assuming) that these are only special entertainment events. I sure hope there are much more events happening in every day of the month in all locations happening. ie. trade shows, conference meetings,

For the LVEC or ANY conference and entertainment centre to thrive, WE must have something happening in it every day. I.e. Toronto International Centre.

Oh yes, I did not see my name anywhere on the http://lvec-showtime.blogspot.com/ Geez I deserve a mention as a pain in the oh well.:D:D

[Dogma]

Lydia;

I believe I get heated because of KCAL's attacking "style" and filtering the project only through their basic concepts, and no others opinions (yours or mine) matters. (I am generally a ***** cat, and rather laid back -beleive it or not)

(They) KCAL suggest that they are "concerned about the process" - ok fine please stick to "the process".

They have valid points. i.e communication, traffic concerns

BUT, when it comes to critiquing and suddenly becoming "experts" - on Elis Don's building, trucking logistics, costings, or special events & management - with ONLY conspiracy theory evidence - I take exception.

Their slick presentations for their conspiracy theories only add to my frustration that the so called "forgotten public" will eat up everything they "present".

Events (of medium small, size) are generally scheduled in a week slot - it takes 2-3 days to setup, 2-3 days to run then a day or so to "tear down" and clean ready for the next one...

I will be sure to not edit comments you wish to leave on the LVEC EDUCATED site. - please visit often...

Thanks for your comments and nice hearing from you.

Have a great summer.

[Lydia]

Thanks Dogma, you have a great summer as well. I believe in presenting both sides of an argument and I don't blame you for being upset with the KCAL.

Keep in mind, however, that KCAL did express their concerns when the project was being considered. They had their reasons which I personally don't see applying now that the project is in progress.

I orginally was with them because of their concern with Anglin Bay, and I prefer the North Block over Anglin Bay. I believe in preserving our water front, but that is just me. I would be against anything being build on the waterfront other recreation parks and the like.

Now that the building is being constructed it is time to start supporting it regardless of our past opinions. I stop being a member of the KCAL when one of the big shots there didn't like me quoting from their website on this site to get the public's opinions. I don't mind an argument but i hate censorship.

Regardless, I do believe that the public isn't really all that worried about the issue now. You will always get people saying they don't support the project and won't go there, however, as time goes by, people change. (look at you and me):D:D:D This will keep up until the building is finished and activities start happening at the LVEC.

You took all the fun out it when you said you would allow me to add a posting there. I enjoy tormenting you on here instead. Anyway have a great summer as well. Relax, things will be better once the public really gets to understand and see progress happening at the LVEC.

[Dogma]

Why I'm donating to the arena

Andrea gunn
Opinion Columns - Tuesday, July 10, 2007 Updated @ 7:04:48 AM

The communi-ty fundraising campaign for Kingston's new sports and entertainment centre is a quarter of the way toward its goal of $2 million. A few individuals, companies and agencies have set the project on a sure footing with large donations, and for that they are to be commended. But there are thousands of us in the community who can be part of the project without having to give large sums of money.

A small donation of $5 or $10 is just as valuable as any large donation. It is valuable in the intent of the donor to contribute to the development of a community space for family and sports activities. It's a way of saying, "I believe in the future of this community, and I want to be part of it."

Earlier this year, the future of the sports and entertainment centre project was jeopardized by a motion at city council to pull the plug on the project. A local radio station initiated an online petition to garner names and comments from supporters of the project. The outpouring of support was amazing. The comments ranged from the short and sweet - "Just build it already!" - to personal stories about what the centre would mean for Kingston. It means jobs. It means attracting musical acts, conventions and trade shows. It offers a venue for teenagers too young to go to bars to see their favourite bands, and for parents to take their kids to see family-oriented shows.

Some community members have made it a goal to hound the sports and entertainment centre project and try to hinder its progress. The centre has been used as a whipping boy for these naysayers, often under the safety of anonymity, so they can air their distrust of government or business, their fear of change or their envy for others.

Despite their efforts, the centre will move ahead. Raising money for a large project can seem an overwhelming task. But those who are passionate about making their community a better place continue to step forward and offer their time, their money, their expertise and their enthusiasm.

This week, I am dropping off my cheque for the sports and entertainment centre. It won't be for a huge amount, but it's my way of saying, "I'm in. I want to be part of this community's future."

- Andrea Gunn works in policy and communications and is a member of the Whig-Standard's Community Editorial Board.

[Dogma]

In true KCAL fashion - this group threatens a defenceless LVEC supporter in public...
rather than publish todays opinion column..regarding the LVEC fundraising initative.

- wait for it (know doubt - they will soon have a new LVEC target now with a GUNN)


Shadoe Davis Leaves K Rock (http://www.kingstoncomputerplanet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28457) http://www.kcal.ca/offsitelnk.gif

LVEC uber-booster Shadoe Davis Leaves K Rock (http://www.kingstoncomputerplanet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28457) http://kcal.ca/offsitelnk.gif, and leaves town before he'd raised much if any of the LVEC money he said he would.


Here's what KCAL has written about Shadoe Davis:

March 10, 2007: Shadoe Davis schmolkas himself (http://kcal.ca/kcalrss032007.html#3328)
March 5, 2007: KROCK's Shadoe Davis lies to us. Again. (http://kcal.ca/kcalrss032007.html#3316)
February 26, 2007: Calling shenanigans on KROCK's Shadoe Davis (http://kcal.ca/kcalrss022007.html#3305)
February 26, 2007: For the record: KROCK 105FM's pro-LVEC push (http://kcal.ca/kcalrss022007.html#3302) (with audio)
December 17, 2006: For the record: a Downtown Kingston mouthpiece sounds off (http://kcal.ca/kcalrss122006.html#3212)Apparently he won't be around to answer for his share, for which he deserves plenty.

[Dogma]

Feds await arena pitch; Funding requires written proposal

Jordan Press
Local News - Tuesday, July 10, 2007 @ 00:00

Kingston's mayor says he's confident the city will receive federal funds for the downtown arena by this fall, even though city officials have not yet submitted a formal proposal to obtain the money.

A spokesperson for Lawrence Cannon, federal minister of transport, infrastructure and communities, said the federal government was willing to consider a funding proposal, but procedure requires that one be put in writing.

"We've never received a project proposal for this," said Natalie Sarafian, Cannon's press secretary.

Ministry officials review every application that comes in to see if there can be any funding for a project. Sarafian said one could be sent in at any time with or without a specific program in place from which to draw the funding.

This summer, the federal government will meet with provinces and territories to finalize the eligibility criteria for an grant program announced in the 2007 budget.

"Nothing is guaranteed," Rosen said. "I don't pretend that there are any guarantees of anything."

At the groundbreaking ceremony at the arena site one year ago this month, Rosen said requests for federal funding would "bear fruits in the coming months." He added at the time he expected money by the end of 2006.

That didn't happen.

"The government is moving very slowly on this," Rosen said. "I don't think there's much doubt on that."

He stopped short of criticizing the Conservatives, saying he didn't want to hurt the city's chances of receiving the money.

City officials tried to persuade the government to give Kingston the money without going through a particular funding program, but to no avail, Rosen said. He wouldn't say what the city had proposed, saying it "would not profit us" to second-guess the government's decision.

Commissioner of growth Cynthia Beach said the city hasn't submitted a proposal to the federal government because Ottawa said there wasn't any program for which the arena qualified. Instead, letters have gone back and forth between the city and the ministry, Beach said.

If the ministry wanted a proposal, the city could have one ready within a week, she said.

It has been more than a year since the city received a short letter from the federal government saying it was "considering a request" for funds to the now $46.1-million project.

The letter came to the mayor's office the night council voted to proceed with the project. In it, Cannon wrote the project "will receive federal consideration if it passes the vote ... and obtains provincial support."

The day before the letter arrived, the province announced its support of $4 million for the arena and, on May 30, 2006, city council voted to proceed with the project.

The federal letter was not a guarantee. Sarafian said the letter only said the federal government would consider a funding request.

Rosen said he has had only one face-to-face meeting with Cannon since council approved construction. The meeting happened in Ottawa at Cannon's office, but the minister was busy and could only speak for a few minutes before leaving, Rosen said.

[Lydia]

Okay, Dogma, Now you are upset with the KCAL and I hope you are equally upset with the way Our city is going after grants for this project.

I only have one question 'WHY THE HECK DIDN'T THE REQUEST FOR A GRANT HAPPEN BEFORE COUNCIL HAD TO VOTE FOR AN LVEC?"

Kingston's mayor says he's confident the city will receive federal funds for the downtown arena by this fall, even though city officials have not yet submitted a formal proposal to obtain the money.

A spokesperson for Lawrence Cannon, federal minister of transport, infrastructure and communities, said the federal government was willing to consider a funding proposal, but procedure requires that one be put in writing.

and

Commissioner of growth Cynthia Beach said the city hasn't submitted a proposal to the federal government because Ottawa said there wasn't any program for which the arena qualified. Instead, letters have gone back and forth between the city and the ministry, Beach said.

What the heck is Cynthia waiting for????

Now you know why the KCAL group has been so vocal against the LVEC. It has always been the WAY things are done not THAT is is done.

Would you buy your home and have a mortgage on it WITHOUT ASKING THE BANK FOR THE MORTAGE APPROVAL???

I'm sorry Dogma, I am not against having an LVEC but I sure the hell am upset with the sloppy way that funding the the project is happening. I understand why citizens are concerned. They are concerned about it because of taxes and that grants are not even asked for by the City before they begin projects. By the way this applies to ALL projects not jut the LVEC.


I wonder if you or someone at the city level can explain why a request for the grant has not happened.

[Dogma]

I understand there is some confusion with regards to "federal" funding programs for sports related centres.

Our LVEC is NOT just a community sports & recreational related venue. That has a Fed/provincial funnding program....

Our LVEC as in many other cities now....is also an entertainment centre.

Thats the issue. There is no specific funding program for this type of multipurpose project. Athough most new centres are now multipurpose.

The Feds are frankly behind the times with regards to programs that address such community/entertainment projects.

The PPP concept is politically a hot potato.

(Athough they seem to fund/loans of billion or so Quebec' Bombardier...)

Provincial Governments recognize PPP projects through funding programs,thus that is why we have received their grants. Many hospitals in the GTA area are PPP funded.

Frankly; the Federal grant was NOT in the business plan as being a source of funding. It would just be great to have it being that environmental and 1000 extra seats for the facility = a change of "scope" of the project. $$$

These extra seats for example would make the facility more attractive for larger events that would obviously help the funding of the facility.

But, again the Feds are slow with funding programs (period). As Rosen said - and Beach suggests that there are no specific funding programs ..yet.

It has nothing to do with (our) LVEC.

Maybe KCAL could have said so....

instead they published the article below (with comment ofcourse) at the time when funding, budgets and facility costing were being addressed publically.

Whig: Anglin Bay residents rejoice (http://www.thewhig.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=132011&catname=Local+News&classif=News+%2D+Local) http://kcal.ca/offsitelnk.gif

Indeed.


Note the really glib things Doug Ritchie allegedly says about traffic and parking, and the bit about the North Block being the BIA's preferred site all along.
We should keep the KCAL website online for the next 30 years, so that every Kingston resident and their children can read all about it.

What say you now, Mr Ritchie? The accountability for the LVEC is just starting and it starts Doug Ritchie and the Kingston BIA.


KCAL "concerned" about the funding process...sure ;) - if you say so.

I think their interests are wanting to "take on" the City, businesses and anything that effects their
life style, condo sight lines at Anglan Bay, development downtown where they live and their citizen rights to responsible governing.

from the beginning...the main "issue" from the founders of KCAL.....

Such as the condo sight lines on Anglin Bay, development near the city core were they retired, and taxes they feel eat away at their nest egg, and ofcourse the petition..from Downes constituents...many nostagic folks with young families that feed into the conspiracy theories KCAL spins.

[Lydia]

Dogma, I fully understand how the various grants and funding programs work when it comes to Federal or Provincial governments. I understand that they have their own requisitions and guide lines for distribution those funds.

I am not upset with that one bit. What I am upset about is the fact that WE"" CITY"" HAS not even REQUESTED A GRANT or Fund. My question is what are we waiting for. A personal invitation to place a request.

The problem Dogma, is that when projects are being placed before council to vote on projects these grants are implied. My original statement is that ""WE"CITY" should never depend on provincial or federal grants in order to develop any project unless we KNOW FOR CERTAIN that the money is there.

So the question is this, "Does the money to pay off the LVEC or any other project exist in either allocating funds over the next 30 or 40 years from municipal coppers?"

[Dogma]

As expected it did not take more the 24 hours....

KCAL's conspiracy theory is "aimed" at shooting down M. GUNN.


How shaky is LVEC project management? (http://kcal.ca/Whig2007-07-10a.html)
http://kcal.ca/Images/RedFlag.gifhttp://kcal.ca/Images/RedFlag.gifFeds await arena pitch; Funding requires written proposal (http://kcal.ca/Whig2007-07-10a.html), if yesterday's Whig Standard is to be believed. How bad is that?
Published: 07/11/07 02:06:54 PM
Permanent link to this item (http://kcal.ca/kcalrss072007.html#3501)

Andrea Gunn of the Kingston Chamber of Commerce (http://kcal.ca/kcalrss072007.html#3499)
In yesterday's Whig "Opinion" column, titled Why I'm donating to the arena (http://www.kcal.ca/Whig2007-07-10.html) http://kcal.ca/offsitelnk.gif, Andrea Gunn writes:

Some community members have made it a goal to hound the sports and entertainment centre project and try to hinder its progress. The centre has been used as a whipping boy for these naysayers, often under the safety of anonymity, so they can air their distrust of government or business, their fear of change or their envy for others. Despite their efforts, the centre will move ahead. Raising money for a large project can seem an overwhelming task. But those who are passionate about making their community a better place continue to step forward and offer their time, their money, their expertise and their enthusiasm. Here is a reason why Andrea Gunn feels she should "donate to the arena":
She is currently listed as Policy / Communications Coordinator of the Greater Kingston Chamber of Commerce (http://www.kingstonchamber.on.ca/genOrgInfo/staff/index.cfm) http://kcal.ca/offsitelnk.gif. Moreover Ms Gunn has been on the front-lines with the Chamber for quite some time (http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=Andrea+Gunn+site%3Akingstonchamber.on.ca) http://kcal.ca/offsitelnk.gif.
Hers is a staff-paid position. It's odd that Ms Gunn only describes herself in The Whig as "works in policy and communications", as opposed to revealing her paid position with the Kingston Chamber of Commerce, a key player in selling the LVEC to the prior Council and the community.


There's more. It appears that Chamber of Commerce staff enjoy privileged access to the Mayor and Council. Yet Ms Gunn spoke at the April 2005 "Have Your Say" LVEC public meeting (http://kcal.ca/StackedApril24Meeting.html), televised by COGECO, and she DID NOT disclose her Chamber affiliation.
Watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/v/NEf5meCcdQI) http://kcal.ca/offsitelnk.gif, and hear what she says about the business plan, the Castleglenn parking study, the site (Anglin Bay), the "process", all the jobs that will supposedly be created by the arena, and all the "benefits for the whole community" that we can expect.
Also someone at the Chamber of Commerce (its Communications Coordinator perhaps?) distributed this Chamber of Commerce email with subject "LVEC Update from the Chamber of Commerce" (http://kcal.ca/kcalrss022007.html#3291). In that email,

Kingston's 2008 Memorial Cup bid, and its substantial windfalls, are touted at full-face value, and
It asserts that "taxpayers will not be footing the bill for the additional costs if the project goes ahead", thus perpetuating the myth that taxpayers are not on the hook for the LVEC.

[Dogma]

Downtown is thriving, but clean up that fountain

Letters to the Editor - Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Updated @ 7:05:02 AM

I recently attended the excellent free concert in Springer Market Square featuring Kim Mitchell and April Wine and I thought it was time to give credit where credit is due.

Congratulation to the City of Kingston, the Downtown Business Improvement Area and all parties involved for the Market Square rehabilitation program, the new downtown sports and entertainment centre, the free Thursday night movies in Springer Market Square, the free music in the park program and so much more that makes Kingston's downtown the best downtown in the nation (even Kim Mitchell said so at the concert).

[Lydia]

Dogma, I am on YOUR SIDE on this one. I have always said that I was against the LVEC's location but NOT AGAINST AN LVEC. I have never targeted any person for their position on it. You and I have argued the most on this position and yet still remain decent and respectful of each other (dispite you wanting to throw me out of a plane) lol lol.

I know Andrea Gunn. I will support anything that young lady has to say or do. She is the hardest working person in this city and I respect her completely.

Character assisination only shows that you are on the LOSER'S TEAM and that sucks. Some people however, are right fighters. This makes them very sad people because no one is every complete right or wrong. ( I am never wrong, I may be incorrect but never wrong).

All I know Dogma is this, you can not change people's thinking but you don't have to worry about them either. The funding will come from the least expected places and people. Trust me I know. If people want to support the LVEC there is nothing anyone can do to not support it and there is nothing you can do to force people to support it.

Keep up supporting your cause, Andrea is correct in her position. I am still not happy with the location but I am OVER IT. It is time to support our projects because IF WE don't We taxpayers WILL pay for it in the end.

So if KCAL is still knocking the project and sabotaging raising funds, what they are doing it raising OUR TAXES IN THE END.

[Lydia]

I agree clean up that fountain at Market Square. It is nice that concerts are being held at Market Square. I only hope that this winter the skating by the kids will be better that last year. I believe that there should be some kind of barrier around the rink so that people skating too fast don't go out to where the cars are. lol However, Market Square does feel cold because I do miss the Merchants. I wonder what else they are going to put there. I see people still working or digging around the rink and infront of city hall at Market square. lol lol ????? lol lol.

[Dogma]

http://www.cityofkingston.ca/cityhall/strategic/seven/

As individual projects, each of the seven contributes to the city's economic development, infrastructure, environment, and cultural and recreation scene.

As a group, these projects enhance the health of today's city while creating a vibrant legacy for the Kingston of tomorrow.

Investment in the Group of Seven is a major commitment to the future of the city, representing an investment of just over $243 million in community infrastructure.

It is being funded through a variety of methods including:

Property taxes
Grants from other levels of government
Fundraising and donations
User fees
Reserve funds
Development charges paid by builders and developers
Special levies
Debt, which is paid back over time. (For clarity, "debt" is the amount the city owes, while "deficit" is the difference between the city's revenue and what it spends. This financing system works in a similar fashion to a home mortgage, wherein the owner borrows an amount of money based on the value of the property. The amount owed on the property is "debt " and is paid off over a period of time).The City of Kingston believes that well-planned public infrastructure is essential to create and maintain a thriving community.

Social, recreational and cultural facilities make a community a great place to work, live, visit and play. Rebuilding and creating new infrastructure adds to the community's appeal, improves quality of life, and fuels economic prosperity.

The Group of Seven priorities are investments in infrastructure in a city already blessed with a rich heritage and natural assets.

[Lydia]

Dogma, I liked what you have identified what makes a city thrive. I have a question that I would love to know. Before I ask the question I will describe a situation that really angers me.

Recently, my husband and I purchased a GPS system for our car. In it there was all the information I needed to visit any place in Kingston and neighbouring cities and towns. In it was a small list of attractions in those locations.

Since, I enjoy learning about MY COUNTRY I really wanted to learn more about what attractions are in our area. So i went on the Internet and started to look up Kingston, I went to the tourist bureau in front of city hall and asked for the same information.

My question is:

Tell me what attractions are in our city, where are all the locations to see ALL of the attractions, Where are our day parks, or just community parks? etc etc.

Now I was able to see a list of attractions but NO ADDRESSES IN MOST OF OUR TOURIST BOOKS to those attractions. What good is knowing about attractions without having their addresses advertised. Yes there were some but not all of them.

An American tourist or a Canadian tourist who has never been here before would certain wish to come here again!!!!

The listing below illustrates my point.

from the Internet
http://www.citylifeontario.com/
Greater Kingston and Area

Attractions & Museums
.
Coming Events | Galleries | Museums | Tours & Tour Operators
Museum of Health Care Kingston (Address please)
Ann Baillie Building
National Historic Site ( Is George Street a big street)
George Street, Kingston

Bracken Library, Queen's University (Address please)
Stuart at George Street
Daily, 10 AM - 5 PM

Agnes Etherington Art Centre University Ave & Queen's Cres.,
Open Tues-Fri, 10am-4:30pm/Sat-Sun 1pm-5pm
533-2190 Address Please

Fort Henry National Historic Site Hwy 2 East near the bridge
May - Oct 10am-5pm daily ( Which Bridge???)
1-800-473-2233

Kingston Mills Blockhouse on the Rideau Canal Kingston Mills Rd.
May - October 9:00am-7:00pm (closed 12-1) Address Please
1-800-230-0016

This is not unique to Kingston, it also happens in every town and city around us. If we have a Ministry of Tourism, where is he/she??? What are we paying the Minister for??? (This kind of crap) This is also in our tourist books distributed in front of city hall.

Now we wonder why our tourist industry isn't thriving. Gee I wonder why.
If Kingston got our act together and really promoted all our city attractions with their addresses, I think things could really change.

[Dogma]

Now we wonder why our tourist industry isn't thriving. Gee I wonder why.

If Kingston got our act together and really promoted all our city attractions with their addresses, I think things could really change.

I can only suggest from some remarks I made a year or so ago on this site..that because of the Canadian dollar, sar's and Sept 11, new passport requirements - tourism is down more than 40% (in this country) let alone Kingston - which has a weekend stop over destination - reputation.

I agree the internet and ones that research by it may find it difficult to find "personal interest attractions" - but frankly many "return" visitors, or ones that stay - like you and I (that invest in long term economic development) and the tax base... generally arrive because of word of mouth, or know / or have know someone in Kingston.

The local tourism office is often a strategic stop over for most bus tours and independence tourists who decide to stop over from T.O to Montreal...it is probably the best source we have other than the latter.

Thats all I can add.

Take care.

The Dog.

[Lydia]

All those things did scare away the American Tourists and also most of us no matter where we live.

It really is a shame that we don't know more about beautiful natural spots to come and visit. We should start telling people that there is a tourist haven in over 35 smaller towns within a half hour's drive. We have the great hotels, motels in this city. We have great restaurants in this city. We have nice entertainment in this city and all we really need is to tell people exactly how much FUN we have just living here.

All that people want is to know the ADDRESSES of all this stuff. We would be helping ourselves AS WELL as our neighbouring communities.

If you ever traveled towards the Western side of the province and seen the muddy waters in MOST of those communities, you would be over joyed that we live here. Yes I know our lakes are poluted but they are not as poluted as the west end locations, at least they look cleaner.

My family have traveled throughout the Eastern and Central States all the way down towards Florida, We have Traveled throughtout 9 of the Canadian Provinces. That is the reason we choose Kingston, Ontario to live in.

We really do have it all. People don't seem to appreciate what we have and it maybe because they don't know what we have here. We have much more than just the Queens, Hospital, Pens, to brag about. We might not have many major industries like Toronto has but we have 'QUALITY OF LIFE" here that isn't any where else. We all should be very proud of living here.

People will only learn about this if they get ADDRESSES to all our attractions, not just hotels and restaurants.

[Dogma]

I agree more could be done to help tourism in terms of access to un-local, untraditional destinations which Kingston could be more known for. (Other than its traditional historical and sailing image.)

Maybe more school trips would help? But, they probably cut their spending...

I must selfishly add living here - I frankly wish only the few to know some of the areas that I call my own "quality of life / or islands of paradise" that I do not wish even Kingstonians to know about.

(P.S the Muskoka lakes are cleaner, & less weedy) - Kingston lakes get alot of farm run off.

Kingstonians: Also I believe traditionally had a stable economic structure. Especially for institutional infastructure, and in many ways they still are the only historical cornerstones of this small city.

But, I believe since downsizing both Government along with Kingston's marginal industry leaving it has been slow in transforming itself to meet the 21st century realities.

I beleive Mr. Rosen and some of the past / current councilors have refocused the communities priorities (7 projects) that will help Kingston not only cope with the new economic realities, but to also help add to our tax base for the long term quality of life & needs that Canadians and Kingstonians have been blessed with. (in the past)

In fact; I would suggest we will now respect them even more.

[Lydia]

Lmao, So I take it you won't SHARE your information with others??? HUMMMMMMM. lol lol

That is okay, I'll find everything and tell you all about it lol.

You are right the big secret is because people want quality of life. Just remember however, Quality of Life?? Money?? These two don't always helps each other out. lol lol

Since I won't share MONEY i will share information on quality of life. lmao

[posting]

While there is no one definitive source of places to know and visit in Kingston, the wikimapia project (www.wikimapia.org) is one place to look for this information. It also alllows you to join and add your own Kingston sites of interest, description, links and photos of your favourite Kingston places.

It draws its maps from Google Earth but it can simply be accessed from your web browser.

For detailed mapping on wikimapia of Kingston click here (http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=44.238866&lon=-76.464071&z=12&l=0&m=h&v=2)

Reference: http://www.wikimapia.org

[Lydia]

Thanks Posting,

Here is another great website for us to use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Canada.

If you click on Ontario a list of cities in this province appears.
Click on Kingston and see all the information that has been gathered on it.
Take a look at Murney Tower, Kingston picture. Click in on it. It gives a very nice description and histry of it. So what is WRONG with this picture???


IF a tourist would really like to see it because of what wikipedia has mentioned about it and other similiar historical towers, they would only know that it was in KINGSTON. At what address?????

We have so many wonderful places but our tourists won't know the addresses. Yes we know it, yes if you go to the tourist bureau here you would be told it. Wouldn't it be great if people could find it on their own and go see it.

I do have to admit that I really like both websites so thanks for letting people know. ;););)

[Dogma]

Great link Posting...

But, I am getting a little lost though where (this) link is going or to do with the LVEC or Memorial Center?

[Lydia]

I must selfishly add living here - I frankly wish only the few to know some of the areas that I call my own "quality of life / or islands of paradise" that I do not wish even Kingstonians to know about.
(originally Dogma's statement)


Hum, maybe Posting is being selfishly caring about her own quality of life. lol lol.(Sorry Posting, I know that statement isn't true of you but I just had to do it. lol lol)

I sure hope that when you advertise the LVEC, Memorrial Centre, the Multiplex, you insists that the 'ADDRESS" is ALWAYS used with our centers.:D:D:D

[Dogma]

Group of 7 community priorities
http://www.cityofkingston.ca/cityhall/strategic/seven/

As individual projects, each of the seven contributes to the city's economic development, infrastructure, environment, and cultural and recreation scene.

As a group, these projects enhance the health of today's city while creating a vibrant legacy for the Kingston of tomorrow.

Investment in the Group of Seven is a major commitment to the future of the city, representing an investment of just over $243 million in community infrastructure.

It is being funded through a variety of methods including:

* Property taxes
* Grants from other levels of government
* Fundraising and donations
* User fees
* Reserve funds
* Development charges paid by builders and developers
* Special levies
* Debt, which is paid back over time. (For clarity, "debt" is the amount the city owes, while "deficit" is the difference between the city's revenue and what it spends. This financing system works in a similar fashion to a home mortgage, wherein the owner borrows an amount of money based on the value of the property. The amount owed on the property is "debt " and is paid off over a period of time).

The City of Kingston believes that well-planned public infrastructure is essential to create and maintain a thriving community.

Social, recreational and cultural facilities make a community a great place to work, live, visit and play. Rebuilding and creating new infrastructure adds to the community's appeal, improves quality of life, and fuels economic prosperity.

The Group of Seven priorities are investments in infrastructure in a city already blessed with a rich heritage and natural assets.

[Dogma]

Costs drove industries away
Forum - Thursday, August 09, 2007 @ 07:00

Alcan used to employ more than 2,000 people. DuPont was close behind. Northern Telecom employed 600; Celanese had 1,200 jobs. UTDC cost hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize it, and it is now an empty shell. There was once shipbuilding, locomotive works and a tannery.

Brockville lost Phillips Cable; Cornwall lost its pulp and paper plant. Gananoque lost hundreds of auto-parts jobs. Napanee lost Emerson Electric, Sealtest Dairy, Levi's Jeans. Smiths Falls is losing Hershey's. Peterborough lost most of its massive General Electric and Westclox divisions. Now, add up all the new manufacturing jobs that you can think of. There actually are a few. All these industries enjoyed good infrastructure of highways, rail, hydro, water and skilled labour to support them.

Markets for their products are nearby. Obviously, infrastructure was not lacking and there is no need to improve that. We all admit that our labour costs are high compared to other nations, but no one wants an $8 per hour job. Well, now we don't have them anymore. So what can be done?

Municipal governments can do very little to attract industry. They can try hard, they can set up industrial parks, set up committees to attract new businesses. By the time they attract one new plant with 50 jobs, another one with 500 jobs moves out.

We all like low municipal taxes and we all rely on industry to pay about three times the tax rate that we are willing to pay for our own homes, yet industry doesn't send kids to school and they don't even get municipal garbage pickup.

What is wrong with one tax rate for all? Is keeping industry really important to us? What other well-intentioned rules, regulations and bureaucracy do we have that annoy them and aren't essential? Without industry paying local wages, there is less money being spent in the retail and service sectors, too. This really concerns all of us.

Industry is only concerned with their bottom line. How they get there is only details. Gone are the days when we could rely on industry to support all the municipal services that we want, but don't want to pay for. Perhaps it is time to look at the industrial and commercial municipal tax rates and consider whether or not they are counter-productive. By the way, I have no vested interest in any manufacturing in the area, but losing more jobs there cannot be in my best interests. You cannot tax an industry if it is gone.

While you are at it, ask your local provincial and federal members of parliament what they are doing to preserve jobs. Demand an action plan that has a chance of some success. We are not sitting on oil wells here, while gold and silver mines are to the north. We don't need jobs for a handful of rocket scientists either. We need busy finger work, we need to make our own clothes and appliances again. How much longer will we still be making our own cars? Have we actually given up expecting any new manufacturing jobs? Now there is a good question.

Steven Manders

Kingston