If We Like it, Then We Better put a Ring on it

I hate being led by the nose. I hate being offered shiny baubles to distract me from something that has started to smell. Most of all I hate when the shiny baubles are only a tiny fraction of a giant pile of gold that is currently sleeping under a smiling dragon.
Just recently Edmonton held a giant forum to discuss the proposed, now confirmed, arena that would cost an additional 100 million that we do not exactly have. Although it was not unanimous, the feelings of the city were apparent; No arena. Not with the current financial plan that was laid out. When the provincial government, the people we had planned to ask for 100 million dollars, reneged on a 92 million that was allegedly promised to us for a new museum (whether actually or by simply implying they would pay and then changing) I, for one, reevaluated my assessment of the probability that the province would 'chip in' to zero. But the arena progresses.

So now, in the Edmonton Journal, we are offered a choice; Would we like to finish the Anthony Henday, the celebrated ring road encircling the city that even Yours Truly has used in the past 24 hours? Or would we like to finish the LRT that has long been a source of embarrassment for a city our size? We have to pick one. Maybe we should just paint two balls, white and black, then let Mayor Mandel pick one from a bag?

How about both? Is that an option? Can we have both internal and external convenience when it comes to transportation in the city? Especially when you consider the Arena would be considerably hampered by a lack of effective transportation to and from the site. Apparently not. Truth be told, I retain a fondness (bafflingly and in flagrant defiance of the evidence) for our Mayor, but I really believe he needs to step back from this arena deal and revisit it in 5 to 10 years when we have the ability to travel around our city without busting a blood vessel. This is not a case of having my cake and eating it too, this is a case of having a plate and some utensils to eat my cake before making the icing. Otherwise it's just going to be a huge mess.

A "Very Significant Discussion"

Hey Victor? I think we should buy a new car.

A new car? But you don't have a license, we only need one car.

I know, but I just think it'd be really cool, you know? We'd have somewhere to put that Oilers bumper sticker.

Is that the only reason you want it? Because we could use that money to fix the flooring. 

No, I don't want that, it's boring. Besides my friend said she'd give us half.

Half is good, I guess. Where will we get the rest from? 

I don't know - We could ask mom and dad?

Didn't their basement just flood?

Honey! Come on! I want one!

If you're so set on this, why not a truck? We could buy a heavy duty truck?

No I want a car, just like the one we have, but blue ... with gold rims!

What does your friend want for the half she's going to give us anyway?

Well, she gets to keep it at her place, but we can totally have it for four weeks!

A month?

A year.

This is ridiculous! Why do you want this all of a sudden?

Look, the salesman said we had to do this by the end of the month or it'll be too late!

Have you ever heard that and not been swindled? It's just a pressure tactic. Besides we don't even want it - this month or next. We can't afford it and that's that.

You can't stop me! I'm buying it whether you like it or not!      
We just renewed our vows; aren't we supposed to decide these things together? 

Look, I have to go; It might already be too late. We'll talk about this when I get back with the new car! 

All in All, It's just Another Brick in the Wall

Every time I read about this new arena, and the funding that the province is tentatively offering in the form of the Municipal Sustainability Initiative, the only thing I can focus on is the fact that 1000 teachers will be laid off this next September. Alberta's education budget is short $107 million, conveniently only $7 million away from the exact amount the province will be giving to build a new arena.

I have always been an advocate of proper borders; if money is intended to be allocated for one problem, we must maintain focus instead of just frivolously throwing money at whatever problem seems more dire. If we start considering our budget as a large pot of money to be used liberally (Har har.) eventually we lose sight of the bigger picture, and mired in debates like "Shelters or food banks? Roads or sewers?" This means that twenty years down the road we may have solved many problems, but we will be left with no future plans or projects.

In essence we should not simply shuffle the money over because we notice the imbalance, but the discrepancy is telling. It is true that we can not be held hostage to the whims and desires of the education system; if we hand over money whenever it is demanded of us we run the risk of losing the authoritative position we hold, but the shortfall is allegedly based on a previously negotiated contract that was not adequately budgeted for, and it doesn't look good to renege on previous agreements because of poor planning. At the end of the day, education tends to bear the brunt of budget cuts, and the MSI boasts a pool of $886 million this year alone, which is a pretty substantial pot to fix potholes.

The only question would be how long the education board is going to run a deficit. A $100 million investment in an arena, even considering Edmonton's history of going wildly over budget, would be over by the next year, and then self-sustaining. The education payment, however, would only worsen as time, and salaries, went on. Ultimately our province is challenging our teachers to do even more with less, and expecting it to work, but since education is not a business, with no quarterly reports, there is no way to show the damage to the system from funding cuts ("See this child? He is %3 dumber than he would have been.") until many years down the road, and sometimes never.

What I'm saying is that Edmonton should not turn down the money (even if I don't think we need a new arena), because it would just be used elsewhere in a similar fashion, but we should begin to take a closer look at the province's priorities, especially at the dawn of a new premier's reign.

Smells like urena

Even though the election is over, it seems the public may have made a difference in Edmonton. City Council is hosting four public open houses to provide information and a dialogue about the Arena. But let's take a look at the numbers first, shall we?

The estimated cost of renovating Rexall place is $250 million, and the result is that Edmonton has a refurbished arena. A new arena is estimated to be $450 million, with $100 million coming from the Katz group and $250 million coming from ticket taxes and a "revitalization" levy. ($100 million is also pledged from Katz to be put into the surrounding community.) This means that if we can find 100 million, Edmonton can have a new arena. Functionally, we get a new arena for the price of half of Rexall refurbished.

Some people are wondering why Katz would pledge  $100 million to go into the surrounding area, instead of Edmonton simply putting that money towards the arena (since the funding model is short exactly that much) but it's a form of leverage; the investment is likely to come back to the new arena in the form of increased traffic, which is much more sustainable (You know what they say, feed a man and you feed him for a day, teach him to feed himself...)

Another concern is whether we should be spending money in this economic climate (which is really not as bad as people think it is) but as anyone who has taken a 100 level economics course can tell you; spending is not necessarily a bad strategy during times of low interest, just so long as inflation is also low. It's the whole "buy low, sell high" principle at work. During times when people are broke, everything is cheaper, so it is actually a really good time to be investing in our city.

Which is what the arena is. A lot of people are talking about no "public money for private projects", but sometimes if corporations, which we could consider the city to be, and perhaps even should consider it to be, want to prosper they work together to pool money to achieve something awesome. Plus, if we don't put any money in, we won't get any money out, and I don't  believe that the city council is so stupid as to sign away any claim to subsequent revenues from the area

Some people are concerned about the location. But this is the big problem with Rexall, and even Northlands, to an extent. The downtown is spread out, the whole city is bisected rather messily along strange lines. What the airport and the arena and the LRT are aimed at doing is hammering the city into a convenient mould that fits the shape that we know cities work best in. I don't appreciate that the only "case studies" presented to us are all covering American cities, or that one of them draws the incredibly tenuous link between an Ohio brain drain (much like Edmonton has) that was halted by a new arena (plus some housing, but the drain was caused by lack of jobs, not homes), since their public response to sports might be more elastic, but they do make the point. 

The final concern that bothers me, is what we are going to do with Rexall place. Is it just going to stay in service as an arena, or will it be re purposed into something else? Personally I think we should fill it with water and hold naval battles, but I'm also pretty sure we'd have environmentalists up in our face for it. Plus, we can't afford the subsequent "duck fee", should any wayward waterfowl find their way  under a ship's bow.

But the most exciting aspect of this forum is that it means city council gets it. People were loud and worried that the Katz group was going to wave some money in council's face (or theaten to take their toys [oh, excuse me, the Oilers] and leave, which is preposterous) and Edmonton was going to run after them, tripping over whatever we had to, blindly arriving at a shiny new arena that we had no say in. This is council saying "that flies like tailing pond duckies" (i.e. it won't). If we're fronting the lion's share of the cash, we're setting the ground rules. And you know what? I like that.
We need to spend money to make money.