How should LVEC be financed?

[Emerald]

The original committee seemed to say ( did they really say it?) that the LVEC should be built without tax dollars other than what is now being contributed to the Memorial Centre support plus the revenue gained from selling the M centre site.
It would be wonderful if LVEC could pay for itself over a period of say 20 years. I wonder if this is possible? I do not know of any such centre that pays for itself - perhaps Bandit does. Which isn't to say that the public shouldn't support arts and sports thru tax dollars - the question is always the extent of the support. We must have an extremely flexible project although how you make an arena flexible is obscure to me. Could one, for instance, marry a wedding venue and an arena? ( without the wedding party wearing skates, that is?
and yes the Springers have to come out of the closet with $ for support. How much should we expect? and how should we know if it is enough?

[Emerald]

I think I have changed my mind about the Memorial Centre. In the beginning I saw it as a disposable piece of property largely because it was such a mess. The recent publicity given it by the WIlliamville Group has highlighted that parkland is valuable and that 'they aren't making it anymore'. In addition $5 million doesn't seem like a lot. I do fear, however that having acted as the city's trash can for so many years, it will take a monumental effort to get this site looking like a park. The Williiamsville group could start by picking up the garbage.

[Friends]

On Tuesday, 9th Nov., I saw a breathtaking display of northern lights. The sky around us glowed with an eerie green radiance while shafts of light extended far overhead. Luminous waves ascended like blushes and a shooting star streaked across the sky as if it had sensed the perfect moment to appear.

And I saw all this from the only public place in our neighbourhood with a full view of the sky, namely the sports fields at the Kingston Memorial Centre, a site that city council, just hours before, refused to commit to saving. While I was heartened that a significant number of councillors are in favour of keeping the Site, the fact that the motion was referred to committee before council was prepared to vote on it sends a clear message that we cannot consider our city parks and recreational areas safe with this council.

Why couldn’t the mayor and councillors vote to save a park in the area of the city which has such a disproportionately low amount of park space and one of the highest densities? Why could they not vote to uphold, not only the specifics of our Official Plan, but its fundamental principal of protecting our Open Area Spaces? I suggest they take a long, hard look at the Official Plan and tell us why they should be ignoring a document prepared by trained urban planners with public input and intended to guide the responsible development of our city.

In my presentation to council on behalf of Williamsville Residents Association and Friends of the Memorial Centre, I asked the councillors, apart from my own councillor, Councillor Smith, to consider the largest park in their district and reminded them what they are: Little Cataraqui Conservation Area, Lemoine’s Point, Belle Park Fairways, Woodbine Park, Grass Creek Park, Cataraqui Park (Belle Island), Lake Ontario Park, Arbour Ridge Park, City Park, McCullough Park and Max Jackson Park.

I asked them to imagine if those parks, the largest parks in their districts, were gone. Imagine the public outcry. Imagine the anger and frustration. Imagine even suggesting it.

Yet, even if all those parks were gone, over 1550 acres, they would still have more park and recreational space per person than Williamsville has now.

In light of this incredible discrepancy, how they possibly justify selling even one square inch of our park?

How could they justify it
- To the residents of Williamsville and the surrounding areas
- To the tens of thousands of people who use the Site each year
- To the numerous people who have written to the papers in support of keeping the Site and facilities
- To the approximately 4,000 people who have already signed our petition
- To all the people who came to the council meeting on Tuesday night

And ultimately, how could they justify it to the Ontario Municipal Board? Because in order to convert the site to another use, an amendment to the Official Plan will have to be made and upheld by the OMB, since it will inevitably be appealed.

In order to improve community ice facilities, there have been proposals to refurbish or repurpose the Memorial Centre Arena for recreational use and/or build more ice pads on the Site. Voting to maintain the Site as public community facilities is consistent with all these scenarios.

I was concerned that some councillors, even now, believe that these arguments are not enough and that no decisions should be made regarding the sale of the Site until the financing options are presented for the proposed entertainment centre.

To those councillors, I suggested they consider the following:

Any responsible financing option will not include the sale of the Site. We have been told that shovels will be in the ground in less than 20 months. It could easily take longer than that for the inevitable OMB hearing and a favourable judgment is by no means guaranteed.

If the construction of the centre is contingent on selling the Site, either the process will be significantly delayed; or hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent on the preparatory work at the risk of an unfavourable OMB hearing and the loss of the project.

The Kingston Community Strategic Plan, adopted by Council October 24th, 2000 and prepared by a committee which included Councillors Foster, Pater and Sutherland, states “we are committed to protecting our heritage and our cultural and natural environments for future generations.” What is the Kingston Community Memorial Health and Recreation Centre but a major element of our agricultural, community and military heritage, a centre for numerous cultural activities which cannot be hosted elsewhere and a significant part of our natural environment?

Just for comparative purposes, the district of Pittsburgh has 46 parks and recreation areas (a total of 216 acres), plus Fort Henry. It has thousands of acres of farmland, over 38 kilometers of shoreline and only 7,457 people. Yet the park that is threatened is an inner city park in a district with only 7 parks (a total of 38 acres), no farmland, no shoreline and with a population 3,163 greater. Will council please tell us why it is OUR park that is being threatened when it is so abundantly clear that we already have the least?

The people of Kingston need to keep reminding their elected councillors and the mayor that the reason Kingston is a great place to live is the quality of life, a major component of which are our parks and recreation facilities. It is time for council to recognize a mistake when they see it, put aside the notion of selling even one square inch of the major park and recreational facility in the heart of the city, stand by their Official Plan and Strategic Plan and show the people of Kingston and the rest of Canada that they truly are committed to protecting our heritage and our cultural and natural environments for future generations.

Mikaela Hughes
Williamsville Residents Association and Friends of the Memorial Centre
Contact us at 549-2005 or williamsville2005@yahoo.ca for more information

[bill]

Well lets see................Rosen stated during the campaign that no tax dollars would be used at all.........therefore does it really matter who pays for it, so long as I am not

[fsrvival]

Well lets see................Rosen stated during the campaign that no tax dollars would be used at all.........therefore does it really matter who pays for it, so long as I am not

Well, it's a campaign promise so it must be true, eh?

Don't bother confusing yourself with the facts:

http://www.kcal.ca/LVEC_Financial.html

[bill]

I know, but I will actually hold back the amount that goes to the LVEC if they try to make us pay for it. I am so fed up of politicians lying and making us pay for their stupid ideas. Rosen did an interview on K ROCK where he said it would not cost us anything that it would be a P3 deal. I would assume that getting to hear the tape again would be difficult because the owner of the station was a campaign donor, and the morning show bozo's keep promoting it....

[macphail]

And doesn't the owner of K-Rock also have a piece of property that is needed to build the LVEC on?

D.

[Friends]

On November 9, 2004, Kingston City Council refused to quash a proposal to sell the Kingston Memorial Centre and grounds. Instead councillors voted 7-6 to defer to committee a motion made by Councillor Steve Garrison. The motion was intended to preserve the 23.6 acre site as publicly owned recreational land and a living Memorial to veterans. In failing to protect one of the city's main recreational assets, the council voted clearly for short-term financial gain and against the broader interests of public health.

The possible sale of the Memorial Centre site was proposed last spring by the Mayor's LVEC task force as one means of raising money to build a 6500 seat rink and entertainment centre on Anglin Bay. Perhaps the task force thought that the proposed sale of a crumbling building and aesthetically-challenged park in a low-income neighbourhood would lead to little protest. They badly misjudged. On November 9, council received a petition signed by almost 4000 supporters of the Memorial Centre site from across the City– an amazing number of signatures on any issue, let alone one deemed a ‘neighbourhood issue' by some councillors.

Several councillors voting to defer the motion suggested that opponents of the sale are misguided and misinformed, that we are a little simple, perhaps, and don't understand the complexity of municipal government.

Here's what's simple: as Mikaela Hughes showed clearly in a presentation to council, Williamsville already has far less parkland than any other district in the city. The neighbourhoods surrounding the Memorial Centre are of higher density and lower income than others in Kingston. Is it a coincidence that it is this parkland and not Woodbine Park or Grass Creek Park that council considers ripe for selling?

The decision not to support Councillor Garrison's motion shows a complete disregard for recent efforts by agencies like the public health unit or the North Kingston Community Health Centre to encourage people to get more exercise. In an era of increasingly sedentary living, how could council choose not to preserve one of the few public green spaces in the centre of town that facilitates people's attempts to get fit?

According to the 2000/2001 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 56% of Canadian youth aged 12-19 were physically inactive, while as many as 82% of young people may not have been active enough to meet international guidelines for optimal growth and development. Fifty-six percent of adults over the age of 20 were also not active enough to benefit their health. That is, they did not engage in an amount of exercise equivalent to one 30 minute walk per day.

All levels of government, including the city of Kingston, have finally recognized physical inactivity as a serious health issue. In 2003,federal and provincial ministers agreed to a goal of increasing physical activity by 10%, across the country, by 2010. It is widely known that physical inactivity has been linked to debilitating, chronic diseases including heart disease, diabetes, and osteoporosis. It has also been linked to anxiety and depression and to a general diminishment in quality of life.

What may be less well known are the factors which influence people's ability to be active. According to the Centers for Disease Control in the United States, the greatest influence on people's ability to be active is the quality of their neighbourhoods and the availability of resources like recreation centres, parks, good sidewalks (cleared of ice and snow) and walking paths. CDC researchers found that two of the main reasons people give for not being active are lack of facilities and fears about safety.

Resources like the Memorial Centre can address both concerns. The facilities and park are already widely used by sports teams and youth groups, by skiers and cyclists, by seniors who enjoy the safety of the (relatively) flat track for walking. Imagine what might be possible in this space if it were redesigned to be attractive and to encourage people's exercising and social interactions?

In addition to the health benefits they offer, public recreational resources like the Memorial Centre site also communicate the extent to which the city values its residents. Accessible, low-cost, well-maintained facilities can promote what's called "social inclusion." Such facilities can demonstrate respect for individuals and for groups. They can nurture talents and promote community engagement. They can reduce social distances as diverse people share space and programs. The more individuals are able to be involved in their communities, the stronger those communities will be.

As writer Robert Putnam has argued, the "connectedness" that comes of participating in the life of the community "is not about warm fuzzy tales of civic triumph. [Rather] a growing body of research suggests that where trust and social networks flourish, individuals, firms, neighbourhoods, and even nations prosper economically."

Integrating physical activity into our daily lives is one of the most important public health challenges of this century. Other cities and towns across Canada are scrambling to create "Healthy Communities," "Active Cities," and "Livable Environments," while in Kingston we are talking of selling 23.6 acres of publicly owned recreational space — of destroying our only outdoor pool, our only public track, several baseball diamonds, and a good chunk of parkland. What a message this sends to our communities: about a lack of concern for residents' health, a dismissal of the value of recreation to city life, and a failure to recognize the needs of the immediate neighbourhood.

There has been much talk in Kingston about revitalizing the downtown core– the LVEC is meant to be among this council's major initiatives to meet this end. Yet urban experiences all over North America have taught us that what makes a truly vital downtown is not big projects but a strong local community – an environment that entices people to live in the core and that rewards them with rich, stimulating lives for doing so. A creative renewal of the Memorial Centre could be just such a reward. Protection of the Memorial Centre site would contribute not just to the health of Kingston residents but to the vibrancy of the city itself.

Mary Louise Adams
Assoc. Professor of Physical Education and Sociology,
Queen's University

[Dogma]

"There has been much talk in Kingston about revitalizing the downtown core– the LVEC is meant to be among this council's major initiatives to meet this end. Yet urban experiences all over North America have taught us that what makes a truly vital downtown is not big projects but a strong local community – an environment that entices people to live in the core and that rewards them with rich, stimulating lives for doing so. A creative renewal of the Memorial Centre could be just such a reward. Protection of the Memorial Centre site would contribute not just to the health of Kingston residents but to the vibrancy of the city itself."

Mary Louise Adams
Assoc. Professor of Physical Education and Sociology,
Queen's University

Truth is:

1) When asked if Mary Louise had any experience or has studied any LVEC's - or large multipurpose facilities, in North America - her response was - "NO".

2) When asked if Kingston's LVEC is the same as Toronto's /Rogers Center/Skydome in Toronto, she said - "YES" - "they are essentially the same" - she says.


Both answers from Mary Louise Adams conclude that she has no experience, (i.e hands on) She has not studied, nor has any studies to support her "personal comments", and has no data to support her argument that Kingston's small LVEC is anything like a large baseball stadium in NY, that KCAL deemed an economic development project in the US, is just like comparing a sailboat to a ocean liner in terms of costs and usage and need.

In fact; the LVEC in Kingston could never hold, facilitate or engage in large venue activities such as major league baseball, autoshows or major concert acts!

The business plan, marketing plan and public consultant have always concluded Kingston is a "regional center", that will focus on smaller events, concerts and "junior A" hockey events. It is neither a "skydome, or stadium" facility in any size, shape or form.

I would suggest Kingstonian's not listen, heed any comments from naysayers like Ms. Adams or her KCAL members.

They know little (to nothing) about LVEC's and have not even bothered to read the traffic, business or marketing reports for this Kingston's premier multipurpose P3 facility. Parking is NOT an issue nor has ever been. But, KCAL promoted traffic gridlock!

Shame on them for NOT even trying to get it right!