Mayor Wins again ! Downes Losses ! $$$

Mayor cleared of conflict

Ex-councillor fails to prove business relationship between Rosen, K-Rock boss, judge rules

Posted By JORDAN PRESS WHIG-STANDARD CITY HALL REPORTER

Posted 6 hours ago

A judge has ruled that Kingston's mayor did not violate conflict of interest laws when he took part in votes on building the downtown arena on the Inner Harbour.

In a ruling handed down Wednesday, Superior Court Justice Stanley J. Kershman dismissed an application from former city councillor Rick Downes to find Harvey Rosen guilty of violating the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The judge ruled that Downes did not prove that there was a business relationship between John Wright from K-Rock radio and Rosen.

Downes claimed that Rosen failed to declare a conflict when he took part in debates and votes on issues related to the selection of property on Anglin Bay as a preferred site for construction of a new downtown arena.

Downes claimed that Wright had a stake in Kingston Marina, which the city would have had to purchase if it built the rink on the inner harbour.

"It is difficult to understand what possible personal benefit [Rosen] would have achieved in supporting ... council's originally chosen site.


There was simply no potential conflict of interest to disclose in the Court's view," Kershman wrote .


Downes could not be reached yesterday for comment.

In an interview, Rosen said he wasn't surprised by the decision.

"I took the legal process seriously ... but I never thought the case was a serious case. It was bizarre. It had no connection to reality," Rosen said.

Rosen's lawyer, Wilfrid Menninga, said the judge's ruling took into account evidence from Downes that was ruled to be improperly placed before the court.

"It's not just a technical decision. It was a decision on the merits [of the case]," Menninga said. "It was a complete exoneration of the mayor's position."

The judge ordered Downes to pay $5,500 of Rosen's legal costs, which is only a portion of Rosen's legal bill, which is more than $9,700.

Rosen said the city's insurance, which covers council members taken to court over municipal decisions, will cover his legal costs. It will be up to the insurance company, Rosen said, as to whether Downes will have to pay up.

Downes filed the civil action in March. Had Rosen been found guilty, he could have been removed from office.

In April 2004, Rosen announced that a task force he hand-picked had identified 4.7 hectares of land on the Inner Harbour as the ideal site for a new arena.

At a news conference on April 16, 2004, Rosen explained that to build there, the city needed to purchase nine-tenths of a hectare of land from Wright, who owns the Kingston Marina. He also owns K-Rock.

Rosen voted to build an arena on the site, but public outcry was largely responsible for moving it. The arena now stands at the corner of Barrack and Ontario streets.

Rosen declared a possible pecuniary interest this year when council approved a naming rights deal with K-Rock after he learned the radio station was the successful bidder. The name was kept secret until after the vote.

Council approved the deal, without Rosen voting or taking part in the debate. The deal is worth $3.3 million in cash and services over 10 years.

Rosen said he made the declaration because he didn't want to appear unduly influenced or biased. Afterward, Rosen said, he received legal advice that he had no pecuniary interest in the naming rights deal "but politically people perceive things differently than the law might draw."

The legal decision notes that Rosen Corp. signed a lease agreement with KRock in 2001 for space at 863 Princess St. Rosen signed the agreement as president of Rosen Corp., while John Wright signed the deal on behalf of KRock, the judge noted. Rosen signed the deal as "landlord of the property, and not in his personal capacity," the judge wrote.

In court, Downes argued unsuccessfully that the business relationship between Rosen Corp. and K-Rock created a pecuniary interest for Rosen in regards to city dealings with Wright.

During cross-examination, Kershman noted, Downes acknowledged there was no business partnership between the two.

"So we can ignore the words 'business partnership' because they purportedly refer only to the relationship of landlord and tenant, correct?" Downes was asked.

"I can agree with that, yes. That's fine,"Downes replied.
The lease, the judge ruled, was the only business dealing that existed between Rosen and Wright. "There was strictly a landlord and tenant relationship between Rosen Corp. and KRock [sic]. This is not the same as a business partnership," the ruling stated.

In court , Downes argued that Wright was a shareholder of K-Rock. Kershman wrote that none of the evidence Downes presented properly before the court proved this assertion correct.

"I make this statement as there are numerous materials submitted by [Downes] that are not properly before the court," the ruling stated.

In court, Downes tried to introduce city council documents, press releases, media reports and publicly available corporation information sheets as part of his case.

Downes didn't admit the documents as evidence as part of his affidavit in the case, Kershman wrote, nor did he admit them into evidence in the course of cross-examination of either himself or Rosen.

"I agree with [Rosen] that if [Downes] had wanted to place these documents into evidence, they should have been attached as exhibits to an affidavit," the judge ruled.

Kershman also wrote that there was no evidence to prove that a numbered company owned the Kingston Marina, or that Wright was a shareholder in that company.

The judge stated that Downes told the court that it is "common knowledge" in Kingston that Wright owns the marina. Other evidence that Downes presented, Kershman wrote, was proper evidence before the court.

"While this may appear to be evidence to [Downes], it is not evidence that is admissible in a court of law," Kershman wrote.

Downes narrowly lost the mayoralty to Rosen during the 2006 municipal election.

The $46.5 million K-Rock Centre opened on Feb. 22.

Downes Supports - bitter revenge?

Legal challenge calls for mayor's job; Former councillor Rick Downes alleges Harvey Rosen violated conflict of interest act. Poor loser seeks bitter revenge?

Posted By Rob Tripp

Posted 3 hours ago

A former city councillor has asked a judge to throw Mayor Harvey Rosen out of office because he violated a conflict of interest law.
Rick Downes, who ran unsuccessfully against Rosen in the 2006 municipal election, filed a civil action claiming that Rosen violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

It is the first time in a decade and a half that a Kingston citizen has taken the unusual step of going to court in a bid to prove that a politician has taken advantage of his public position.

Downes filed the application March 17, and the following day, a bailiff served the mayor with a copy of the documents, according to records on file at the Superior Court of Justice in Kingston.

Rosen has not filed any material with the court. A hearing is scheduled for July 10.

"The matter is before the courts and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it at this time," Rosen said in an interview yesterday.
He said he has retained a lawyer.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.
Downes claims that Rosen failed to declare a conflict when he took part in debates and votes on issues related to the selection of property on Anglin Bay as a preferred site for construction of a new downtown arena.

The application also claims that Rosen attempted to influence voting by speaking in favour of the Anglin Bay site.

"Mayor Harvey Rosen of the Corporation of the City of Kingston did not declare the interest or general nature of his business relationship with Mr. John P. Wright at any time before February 5, 2008," the application states.



In April 2004, Rosen announced that a task force he hand-picked identified 11.7 acres of land on the Inner Harbour as the ideal site for a new marquee arena.

At a news conference April 16, 2004, Rosen explained that to build there, the city would have to buy 2.2 acres of land from Wright, who owns the Kingston Marina. He also owns K-Rock radio.

Rosen said the city had talked to Wright but no deal was in place.
Wright's radio station rents office space in a building at 863 Princess St. that is owned by Rosen Corporation, according to Downes's court application.

Harvey Rosen is the president and a director of Rosen Corp., according to the application.

"This business relationship establishes a pecuniary interest between Mayor Harvey Rosen and Mr. John P. Wright," Downes claims in an affidavit filed with the court.

The release of the 2004 task force report sparked a furious and sometimes bitter public debate about the plan to build a new rink.

Many citizens condemned the location.

On June 15, 2004, city councillors voted to move forward with the project, based on the task force report, according to city hall minutes. The minutes show that Rosen voted in favour of moving forward. He did not declare a conflict.

The city did not build the arena on the Anglin Bay site, moving it because of the public outcry to city-owned property on Ontario Street. The $46.5-million facility opened in February this year.

On Feb. 5, city councillors debated and voted on a proposal to sell the naming rights for the facility.

Rosen declared a conflict and did not vote because "the corporation of which he is president and a director has business relations with the naming rights proponent," according to the minutes of the meeting.
The building is now called the K-Rock Centre under a 10-year deal in which Wright's station gives the city $3.3 million in cash and services.
Under a Kingston bylaw, the city may pay Rosen's legal costs of defending himself against the court action, provided that the application is dismissed.

He would not say if he'll take advantage of the provision.
Downes also declined to comment, citing the fact that the case is before the court.

After nine consecutive years on council, Downes sought the mayor's job in 2006, running against Rosen, then the incumbent, and councillor Kevin George.

In a mayoral race that attracted nearly 38,000 votes, Rosen beat Downes by a little more than 700 votes.

Downes is the vice-principal of Amherstview Public School.
Rosen told the Whig-Standard in an interview in November 2003, shortly after he was elected to his first term as mayor, that he expected few conflicts between his public role and his job in his family's land-development firm.

"I don't see a great deal of potential for conflict," Rosen said in the 2003 interview. "As a matter of fact, I know when there is a conflict as opposed to ones that are artificially erected to avoid having to take a position on an issue."

Rosen said that he had been an employee of Rosen Corp. for just under three years and had closed his law practice shortly after the 2000 municipal election. At that time, he went "in house" as vice-president and counsel for Rosen Corp., he said.

Rosen said he didn't expect there would be many conflicts that would prevent him from leading debate on important civic issues.
"I don't see it," he said. "If there were a lot of projects that were before council, if it was a matter of policy change or a political decision with respect to some project on an ongoing basis, I would have a great deal of difficulty.

"But that's not going to be the case. It's not in the cards."
Rosen said his job with Rosen Corp. was not very demanding.
"I know how the company operates in terms of our dealings with the municipality and it's pretty run-of-the-mill stuff," he said.
In 1993, three Kingston councillors were found guilty of breaking the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

A judge ruled that Don Bristol, Ian MacInnis and Dave Meers should not have taken part in Sunday shopping decisions at City Hall.

MacInnis and Meers lost on appeal. Bristol did not appeal.

The judge imposed no penalty, essentially ruling that the politicians made an honest mistake, but the case was costly and divisive and revealed simmering tensions between some politicians and the business community.

Taxpayers forked over roughly $24,000 for the legal bills of the councillors.

The councillors complained that the experience hurt their families and their reputations and they accused downtown merchants of seeking to manipulate council.

The case was launched by businessmen Richard Kizell, Ron Southward and Tom Barrett.

Bristol worked as a commission salesman at Sears. Meers ran a Princess Street tobacco shop and MacInnis operated a Sunday flea market. The court ruled that they had a personal financial stake in Sunday shopping.
At the time, it was prohibited in Ontario, with some exceptions.
The councillors had voted to block the ability of downtown businesses to seek exemptions.
rtripp@thewhig.com

The law

In a court action filed last month, Rick Downes claims Mayor Harvey Rosen violated these two sections of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act:

"Duty of Member when present at meeting at which matter considered
5. (1) Where a member, either on his or her own behalf or while acting for, by, with or through another, has any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in any matter and is present at a meeting of the council or local board at which the matter is the subject of consideration, the member,

(a) shall, prior to any consideration of the matter at the meeting, disclose the interest and the general nature thereof;

(b) shall not take part in the discussion of, or vote on any question in respect of the matter; and

(c) shall not attempt in any way whether before, during or after the meeting to influence the voting on any such question.

Where member to leave closed meeting

(2) Where the meeting referred to in subsection (1) is not open to the public, in addition to complying with the requirements of that subsection, the member shall forthwith leave the meeting or the part of the meeting during which the matter is under consideration."

Parking problem or a Bruce Todd problem.

Citizens account: Parking avaliability at sold out event @ the LVEC !

Differs significantly from our "town idiots"....so called accounts.

Parking doesn't seem scarce
Posted 5 hours ago

I was curious after reading Bruce Todd's letter about the lack of available parking near the K-Rock Centre on a Saturday night ("City misleading public about available parking," Feb. 21). I was passing through the downtown and thought a quick drive-by past the arena could be interesting. How many parking spots were actually available at 8:30 on the eve of a sold-out event?

My short tour in the immediate area showed me that I could have showed up late to the show and had a choice of several spots within a two-minute walk.

If I wanted to pay a few bucks less and park on a city street, no fewer than 20 spots were available within a five-minute walk of the arena.

I figure that either the parking situation is manageable or that using taxis and buses, car pooling and exercise aren't as old-fashioned as some Kingstonians seem to think.

Chris Morris

Kingston

Green with envy; Eco-friendly police station nets $8.5M grant

Green with envy; Eco-friendly police station nets $8.5M grant

Posted By Ian Elliot
Posted 7 hours ago

Kingston's new police station got a low-interest, $8.5-million grant from the federal government for energy efficiency yesterday, opening the door for the new downtown arena to also benefit from the government's green strategy.


The new Division Street headquarters, billed as the greenest police headquarters in Canada, was rewarded yesterday with a loan covering almost a quarter of the construction cost of $34.4 million.

The money came from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which administers the fund on behalf of the federal government. The purpose of the fund is to reward environmentally friendly initiatives by towns and cities.

The Kingston grant was the largest of four announced for eastern Ontario yesterday by Leeds-Grenville MP Gord Brown, who was representing federal Environment Minister John Baird.


Since KCAL seems to dream up most of their Crystal Ball predictions...it looks like it maybe highly likely the LVEC will receive a grant for its LEED building - that will help off set any costs related to the building - along with promoting Kingston (and the naming rights) on the building as a national example of what we are doing in this city to make it both enviromentally responsible & open for business and entertainment expansion!

WHO KNEW?

Certainly NOT KCAL!

Stars on Ice (ARE COMING)

This is what our so called informed KCAL says this week:

Stars On Ice: not coming here

The Stars On Ice 2008 Tickets and Schedule page shows us that Kingston's LVEC is evidently too small.

The smallest venue on the Stars on Ice schedule is the Save-On-Foods Memorial Centre in Victoria which seats 7,400.

The Stars on Ice tour features Kurt Browning, Jamie Sale and David Pelletier, Sasha Cohen, Jeff Buttle, and Marie-France Dubreuil and Patrice Lauzon.

They'll be "passing us by on the 401" sometime between shows in Ottawa (April 19) and Toronto (April 25). Even with a five-day scheduling cushion, the LVEC evidently isn't attractive.

Stars on Ice tickets in the smaller venues like Victoria are typically $50 (ends), $70 (sides), and $100 (at ice level). In Toronto the ice-level tickets are $130.
Published: 12/13/07 10:34:23 AM


Typically KCAL lack of knowledge about the LVEC clearly is highlighted with "bulletins" like the latter!

Here is the reality:

Stars On Ice: BOOKED AND COMING KCAL!

In a full-page colour ad in today's Whig is an announcement for 5 LVEC events:

* Belleville Bulls vs Frontenacs on Feb 22, 2008.
* Tragically Hip on Feb 23, 2008.
* Tracy Lawrence & Craig Morgan on March 16, 2008. Ticket Prices: $79.50, $59.50.
* Stars on Ice on April 20, 2008. Ticket prices $102.00, $72.00,$52.00.
* Charley Pride on June 14, 2008. Ticket Prices: $64.50 and $54.50

Other BOOKED events:

* Blue Rodeo on February 27, 2008.
* Oldtimers hockey on March 27, 2008.
* Harlem Globetrotters on April 1, 2008
* Anne Murray on April 22, 2008.

King-stoned bloggers - are "stoned" again...............

Recently - KCAL have been supporting "Westport" and "King-stoned" bloggers...both recent local arm chair expert on anything smelling like "roll worthy" stuff....

Their very stoned opinions suits KCAL X-file junkies conspiracy theories.....desperately looking for any bad news stories to perpetuate their very diminished members mandate of LVEC misinformed naysayers.

Looking for any negative information (no matter how small) i.e - minor bylaw infractions- trying to inspire an already tired argument on anything LVEC- which KCAL wish to desperately hang on to, with the few core militant members they have left.

Recently a minor bylaw was raised (by 1-6 people)

Outside stonework on the LVEC is being completed, but because the weather typically needs to be warm to best do this "mortoring work" the worker started 15 minutes before 7 a.m - to take advantage of the warmer temps. But, some well healed citizens (protecting ones interest) called up the city on them. Saying the noise bylaw forbids noise over a certain level (between 10 p.m - 7 a.m)

Only a handful of their members complained, and in their true fashion aggressively pushed the city to have the 15 minute "issue" to be enforced, KCAL members at the condo (Anglan Bay) now can sleep in or enjoy their daily paper and coffee time without being disturbed at 6:45 a.m. Because they earned the right - when they bought and paid in full their luxury condo's in Kingston downtown after selling their homes in Toronto, Ottawa for a pretty penny. This is what KCAL main members issue is to retain their new lifestyle they paid for downtown.

It is always remarkable how such selfish folks sleep at night!

If you live downtown such as the condo complainers at Anglan Bay - (the better site for the LVEC) YOU WILL / or SHOULD expect it to be louder because of not only the population and infastructure density, but because its common sense to expect it!

Unfortunately - KCAL & its retired condo members and now Westport - are both fishy when it comes to the real world, LVEC's or any common sense!

LVEC (Design & Build) reality check !

The group (KCAL) or Kingston Concerned about the LVEC recently published misinformation based on "interpretation" of ONE drawing, out of hundreds
available on the LVEC.

"This ONE drawing" - is also NOT theirs - as they claim!

Quote:

There is a very interesting LVEC-related item Adobe PDF document in Report No. 95 of the CAO, which is on Tuesday's Council agenda.

Keep in mind that there isn't a single diagram adorning the item. The diagram below is by KCAL.

Also keep in mind that this is presented as a "done deal"; no alternatives are presented. Nonetheless, council is being asked to approve this.

And that the retractable seating is another scam and based on incompetent design oversights. And KCAL also add that our current council (as they said for the last) are also incompetent and useless.


...blah blah blah...more of the same high & mighty nonsense. (and offending everyone who dares not to agree with KCAL) - are they simple or what?

LVEC - EDUCATED (FACT)

1)The diagram of the the LVEC arena "bowl" is a drawing of the general seating and not the ( design / build ) drawing. No dimentions or specifications for seating...are on these drawing!

2) PLEASE - It is "normal" to have these general/preliminary drawings issued.

Especially, at the start of a build.

SO THAT...- decision makers can grasp, (visualize) or (over examine) the "details" that they would not have the time to oversee. Nor is it their JOB to oversee. They are called "concept drawings"...or line drawing to visual (see) the design. (thats it)

If they want details drawing just ask the City...don't create more misinformation by being arrogant.!

3) Any City council through the freedom of information act can have a "detail" drawings.

Keep in mind they may not have a concept of the details...since they are not trained designers..but they are avaliable.

So, KCAL stop making assumptions in lue of fact!

4) And no NONE of the drawings (are KCAL's)..they are "copies" and property of the projects design portfolio.

Have you ask the City for permission to publish them?

If not you maybe in hotwater, if push comes to shove.

5) There is enough room for the local "hockey Hall of Fame" and I am sure they are working on a website?

- Maybe Steve Black from KCAL could volunteer his armchair expert time..
to a quality, positive local community project???


Here is the real "public disclosure" article:

To truely inform the public - maybe KCAL should have read it first!

Arena seating plan changes; 'Challenges' nix retractable seats

Posted By Jordan Press

Posted 12 hours ago

Structural challenges won't allow retractable seats to fully retract away from the ice surface at the downtown arena, according to a city hall staff report.

Instead, those seats will be removed and additional seats added in other areas, which will increase the total number of seats overall when the arena opens in February, staff wrote.

There is no extra cost to the city, the report noted.

The arena will open with 5,650 seats, instead of the 5,000 as originally proposed.

"In order to be valuable from an operational point of view, the seats need to be fully retractable," the report said.
"There are no expenditures related to the recommendation in the construction contract. There is an opportunity to add additional seats to add revenue potential with no additional costs."

Tomorrow night, city council will be asked to approve the change in scope of the $46.1-million project.

Over the past month, city staff, builder EllisDon and the arena's private operator, Arcturus/SMG, reviewed the seating layout around the bowl of the downtown arena after councillors approved work that would allow an additional 1,000 seats to be installed in the future. During the review, EllisDon found the arena had "structural challenges" that "would impact the retractable seats," staff wrote. If they were to be installed, the 118 seats on the western end of the bowl wouldn't fully retract under the arena's risers to allow for stages to be set up for concerts.

Only two rows of seats would be able to retract under the current design, staff wrote. According to design plans, between three and four rows of seats were to be retractable.

"Based on discussions ... all retractable seats should be removed and that the space could be used as a premium zone," the report said.

The space would become a spot for bar-like tables and chairs from which people could watch games, staff said. During concerts, the area would be empty, the report said.

In the future, fixed seating could be added to this area, staff wrote.

As well, Arcturus wanted the 24 seats over the Zamboni entrance moved to another part of the arena, the report said.
Staff wrote that move and the removal of retractable seating would fill empty risers. There was a concern the foundation for the additional 1,000 seats would lead to empty risers around the bowl, making it look empty and incomplete.

The arena is scheduled to be open on Feb. 22. Staff note in their monthly report on the project that the time "is very tight," but EllisDon has guaranteed the opening date.

Workers from EllisDon will still be in the facility after the opening event to work on any mechanical, electrical and architectural deficiencies, the report said.

By Oct. 18, the arena should be enclosed, the report said.
Next month, councillors will get their first look at details of a naming rights agreement for the arena. After council has had a look at the deal and approved it, the name of the company will become public.

Operator Arcturus is currently in talks with a company to run the restaurant inside the arena.

Project manager Lanie Hurdle confirmed talks are underway with a company, the only one to express an interest in running the facilities.

The company is not based in Kingston, she said.

jpress@thewhig.com

MEMORIAL CENTER REVITALIZATION PLAN

Let's not miss M Centre opportunity
Forum - Thursday, August 02, 2007 @ 07:00

Just for a moment, let us think of the city as a business and spend as we can afford to spend.

Without getting into the debate about the downtown sports and entertainment centre/multiplex versus the Memorial Centre, what should be done with the Memorial Centre site? We have a golden opportunity to revitalize this vibrant neighbourhood. Regrettably, the $32-million revitalization plan and its proposed Disney World facade is both a waste of taxes and potential for the community.

If one considers what Toronto or Ireland have done with similar community infrastructure, this 23-acre property would have a mixed geared-to-income and market-value housing community. We would develop co-op and traditional businesses, a retrofitted community centre and an appealing park environment at its heart.

Developing affordable housing, local jobs, community day care and some ideas from the original concept would be supported for the long term, with property taxes realized from the site, and with only a modest infrastructure cost to city taxpayers.

There are still looming hurdles, though. The Kingston and District Agricultural Society's 50-year-old deal that allows it to hold its annual fair at the site could "fence in" any proposal. The society's recent sabre-rattling and sense of ownership of this public property makes it seem like it may be biting the hand that feeds it.

Helping the agricultural society find a new home would be a challenge. Could we maybe help it with some money? Hopefully reasonable heads will prevail.

Does the memorial to our soldiers have to be at the Memorial Centre site? Could Lake Ontario Park be the new site at which we honour our soldiers? Maybe the current arrangement and an alternative plan could be put to a referendum.

Regarding other local economic development plans, the proposal for the shopping centre along Division Street south of Highway 401 is slowly moving forward. The market and traffic assessment have concluded this area of the city has been underserviced for years.

Let's hope the anchor stores encourage not only their own business but community capacity-building, infrastructure and some quality jobs for this area as well.

The downtown sports and entertainment centre is taking shape a little behind schedule, but for such a project that's to be expected.

KCAL (Kingston Concerned about the LVEC) recently published statements concluding that "event bookings" for such centres are low.

KCAL assumes only summer bookings in reaching this conclusion.

This is testimony as to how little the organization comprehends or wishes to understand how multipurpose sports and entertainment centres work.

The summer months are traditionally not the event industry's prime time of business.

Typically, the fall and spring events capture the bulk of event business, which is growing by 10 per cent year over year.

To find out how these facilities work, KCAL should "begin" by actually reading the Kingston sports and entertainment centre's marketing and business plan. Then I would suggest they actually work (or get a job) in the industry before theY spout on about what little they REALLY know about LVEC's or their process.

LVEC 101 - I ask KCAL (again):

- WHAT IS DRAYAGE AND THEIR SIGNIFICANTS IN RELATION TO LVEC'S ? -

Misinformation machine? Or just passionite concerns?

Interested in LVEC entertainment facilities - and only the true facts?

Stat's Canada Report on performing arts, sports and entertainment trends are a necessary research tool to access the LVEC in Kingstons downtown location.

In Contrast:

Naysayers critiquing the LVEC "passionately"..without such knowledge or experience concerns many of us..in the know.

Examples of misinformation trends to consider.........

- KCAL's only (so called) sports center guru Ms. Adams, who has recently admitted:

"She has neither researched, studied or has any experience with LVEC's".

- She also has never given KCAL permission to publish any of her "opinions".


- KCAL (armchair analysis) from day one is based almost entirely on Whig Standard articles and "small town" conspiracy theories.

Bruce Todd (who is not a traffic engineer) is their only resident traffic cop. But, he has no experience with logistics or drayage management that are fundamental elements of an LVEC!


These are KCAL best sources? - For public concerns to be considered?

KCAL so called "concerns" i.e traffic, parking accessibility and project budgets are certainly project issues to be addressed. OK fine..but

Frankly thats why we pay City Staff, consultants, do critical studies, drawings and schedules with the likes of Elis Don, building professionals - not to mention (2) two city councils to address all the issues within their mandates.

Does KCAL really have the right to try to cherry pick projects?

If they start critiquing the "hard facts" responsibly..
Or mind their own "concerns"...without inflating it with local here say.

Taxpayers would be better off without such misinformation.

PROFESSIONAL SOURCES:

http://www.canadianspecialevents.com/CEP/backissue_2005winter.html#uncovered

http://www.expoworldcanada.com/enterexpo.asp

http:///www.kingstonelectors.ca

Remember our LVEC is:


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

2) Entertainment spending has risen steadily 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 + (low unemployment)

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.

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

Spending on entertainment services highly dependent on income levels
Increased spending and profits for movie theatres
Spending on live performing arts highest in Ontario
Quebecers spend the least on live sporting events
Household spending at heritage institutions is low and growing slowly
Conclusion
References

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

Spending on entertainment services highly dependent on income levels

The average household spent $2732 on entertainment services outside the home in 2003, a 31% increase from 19983. 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. 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).


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.


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 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. 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.

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.



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.

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, 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.

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.



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.

An excellent article at a fitting time

A Kingston haunting; Work on the downtown arena has stopped - and it's all because of the boo-birds.....or local "uneducated" LVEC naysayers!

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.

KCAL - naysayers

I came across this article that speaks to the "head verse the heart of public" interest groups, that may have some current relation to the misinformation surrounding 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. Not just KCAL.

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, (interest groups) 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. But, to say an interest groups "expert" on traffic is (always) right and everyone else is (always) wrong is an example of a lack of well rounded knowledge.

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 cheapened with ad hominem attacks. (see KCAL web site)

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 cheap 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.

There is little doubt it comes (to experience and unbias understanding) of the LVEC to know that groups like KCAL and others know only militant behaviour and adhoc statements that border on ludeness.

Its these groups that have little experience with multipurpose facilites (other than small town hearsay or myopic sound byte research) that has underminded the City's communication process such as the case for Kingston's new LVEC project.

Indeed; a pure example of this is when KCAL submitted (their so called expert) a Ms. Mary Adams an ("Associate prof at Queens) ...

that she "has studied LVEC's and their economic benefit to the community.

But, when we contacted Ms. Adams she said: "I have no experience or hands on experience nor have I studied LVEC's".

The example she and KCAL also use as their (example) is a BILLION dollar basball stadium (not an LVEC) in New York City that is located in a run down slum of the U.S.

How is this a comparision?

Is Kingston's facility a 100,000 seat, 3 season facility?
How can KCAL suggest she is an expert, or Bruce Todd is an engineer? (They are not!)


This is what Andrea Gunn means by having real knowledge before one calls themselves experts on any public project"



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

LVEC location - Basic's property

LVEC location - perfect....
if Basic's moves to better location!

As we have always said - the long term plan would be that Basic's
COULD be associated as an "extension" facility for the LVEC.

In fact; like the TICC (Toronto International Convention Center)
the Basic's location, with its existing building and additional parking is a viable and well purposed facility for any expansion for fairs, events and conferences.

Multipurpose facility.

Indeed, the Good Life Building could also be utilized in the future.

Most Conference Centers have "multiple buildings" located within walking distance.

Hanover, Germany the largest "Messe" in Europe, has multiple buildings.

We have discussed this before...so why be surprised?????

If you need the real deal on LVEC's remember to come here for the info.

Anywhere else (especially) KCAL site is unrealistic,
bias and lack any experience with LVEC's!


You now have been LVEC EDUCATED.

Reserve Funds - they are for the 7 projects !

Just to remind people, we are indeed drawing from the reserved funds
(to help fund) "several" infrastructure, cultural and civic projects.

Indeed, these are the projects that were identified by the people
of the City, council and to be called upon for the 7 priority projects.

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

Now, that we have over runs on The Grand Theatre, and Market Square..people, KCAL & some councilors seem to think its the LVEC that is making the "largest draw" from reserve funds. Which is just incorrect.

Market Square and the Grand have almost doubled their original budgets!

And (these local wish list investments) for these two projects, do not have a business plan and does not allow for a "pay back" of our investment.

The Grand, and Market Square with their limited usage, low capacity, and generally low, to no ticket revenue are "wisher projects". They were initiated by heritage groups with limited funding. And little planning experience when it comes to such "initatives".

They may be well meaning - but if you have little money but high risk ventures..you better be prepared to either take something out of the concept, i.e fountains or decorative windows or not move ahead at all.

Unfortunately, council did not stop these two projects, or asked the projects be scaled back when they should have earlier.

The LVEC example (with only 10% overage) will have a much faster pay back, and revenue stream. Solely because of its capacity and multipurpose assets, its LEED design for efficiency and its modern long term maintenance free building. This allows for a better ROI of our reserve investment. To pay back the overages etc.


The LVEC has many more "available funding possibilities" for public & private investments than The Grand, or Market Square ever will. Especially, now since the Springer donation issue.

Ravensview treatment facility was a "legislated" project. Because of Walkerton.

Thus, funding from the Province and the City was needed. @ $ 125,000,000 this project was the one that costs us the most, and we get "safe water" into the future. It also may come in below budget.

To be so simplistic, because one does not understand or agree with the LVEC, over the
Market Square or The Grand Theatre...i.e this money could upgrading sewers is one thing, it is quite another to suggest the LVEC is the "main" cause of concern for reserve fund usage.

And its one thing to "wish" for Market Square or "Grand again" days of old. But, you first must be able to afford these dreams, It seems to me this town maybe lost in nostalgia again....with out any "stuarts of accounts payables" to wake you up!

Indeed, from the outset the Grand Theatre AND Market Square have been poorly financed and planned from the beginning.

Combined both have taken 13 million plus - the (largest share of reserve funds) compared to what they will "pay back".

You now have been LVEC EDUCATED!

KCAL group (which many are not a member of) does not seem to want to
acknowledge or respect (an auditors report) or understand last weeks
budget explanation/ business plan.

Even Mr. Glover "gets a fuzzy feeling" about the projects success.

And with respect to the projects budget,its not unusualto underestimate a "concept" as in Anglin Bay.

Until all the drawings and fittings are 90 % on paper, its difficult in any construction project to say it's XYZ dollars.

(Especially, in construction on a LEED building.)


KCAL's presentation at City Hall (the first in 3 years of preparation) left most scratching their heads wondering what the heck he was talking about!!!

Knowing that they (may have) still some positive inputs to the process...their tone or tolerance for this first engagement from behind their screens, came across rudely & hostile.

Their presentation also seemed ill prepared. Their spokesman just seemed to be
rambling on and on on.

And as a result, received little attention from most of the council members.

Lots of hurried info, but no focus or process on anything - specific". And their only coherent point about interest rates with BIA was completely wrong!

Ms. Kennedy verified this.

Frankly, if they truly wished to look like they know what they are talking about...to help the public understand
the LVEC operations, and financial plan they should have
been at least more coherent
and more accommodating to any questions.

Indeed, a more positive and inclusive contribution to the evening would have been a better strategy.

To come out with "guns blazing" is typical to their more than arrogant stance on the subject. Ramming this stuff down our throats in their first public forum was just down right stupid.

Process! They certainly proved a lack at that...

So, who's calling the kettle "Black"? Now?

All I know, from KCAL expensive Anglin Bay move, waisting staff time, new reports required and not enough true experience, KCAL, sure proved tonight the core members cannot make a very good presentation, and thats why they lost.

But, I can hardy wait to read on their web site they hide behind, some of
these council meeting observations..(I have already heard other speak to, read be
seen around town. They really blew it.

But, I am sure of one thing, they will do one of the following..anyways.

Be oh so insulted, or deem us part of the "tax conspiracy" of LVEC.

Or both!

But it's most disheartening to know this groups core members act in such hypocritical ways....

1) To save their "lifestyle" condo on Anglin Bay, from the LVEC, while the rest of us on the streets (or on the street) loose not only the view, but parking, noise and traffic from their condo.

They have more money and retirement pensions than any business person will ever have, and are more "concerned" about keeping it, than helping any marginalized people or areas in the city with their taxes or so called "infastructure fight". Its just about keeping what they have !

But, again to help Educate folks and keep their eye's on the ball....

The original task force report was estimating the LVEC (on Anglin Bay)
@ $ 28,000,000,

An estimate with no drawings, no design and no extras for
i.e.LEED certified, staging, developing the property, environmental
assessments etc. Along with the cost (staff reports) two environmental
assessments - AND to move the facility to the North Block.

The
original business plan - was used to get a "reasonable estimate" on
most of the "known" basic costs and issues, for the success of ones
venture.

It included and identifying risks. i.e building costs at that time, cost associated for the "general project" - only based on Anglan Bay. Which = $ 37,000,000. (Approx.)


Business plans are also NEVER, EVER
a 120% sure outcome of a project or ones business venture.

They are a
guide or road map of project expectations, based on other
facilities (in this case), or businesses in the same industry with
inclusion of local frameworks/information - such as demographics,
population base, usages, facility seating size..etc.

They are also generally built on conservative data.

Ms.
Kennedy's analysis of the business plan, market studies and expenses to
revenue for this project was well done.

Certainly not just because the positive numbers, or because she identified
weaknesses and strengths in the "forecasts". And adjusted style="font-weight:bold;">accordingly...

Because it was communicated and made the information (that has been available
to the public for 2 years) more "reasonable to consume" for the lay
folk for most ofKingstonians , & council - instead of local gossip,
or pumped up naysayer
groups it was listen to and better received...Glover even
said - he is withdrawing his support for theLVEC cancel motion. That's how you should treat people with respect and with some honey.



Memories or circumstances from the past are why there is some opposition.

Nothing more.........

(See - 11 points below)

Indeed, it is true the following contributing factors led to such issues...

1) Residential tax increases steadily since 1998. Up 25%
2) residential taxes to low, no allowance for infrastructure (previous 20 years)
3) Reliance of "institutional employment" in the region, general complacency
4)The loss or closing of manufacturing facilities in the area (5000 jobs)
- an indeed the days of 40 year careers with pensions (are over)
5) Block "D" (25 year issue) - pent up development frustrations
6)Grand Theatre (concepts by heritage interest groups) development - of
an old, very risky building, foreseeable budget overruns
7) Market Square - naming rights - closed door agreement - mistrust, not resolved
8) Previous council of business oriented "supporters", new council (lesser)
9) Social discourse relating to accountability, lack of communication
10) To many (pent-up or regulated) projects for the City at one time.
11)No central "point man" to communicate, articulates and liaison public
concerns of the "process", design and scope of (all) of the 7 main
projects identified by the general public 3 years previously.
12) Overrun report in Sept. that possibly the former project manager was fired for. - but no disclosure, confidentiality issues.
13) Newly organised tax groups and residence at the condo on Anglin
Bay (who were instrumental) and generally had the time, money to
organize and to feed the fire of the (lack of communication and
transparency) - the City chose to ignore on the LVEC file. - such
sentiments wished their condo community to have free access to their
panoramic views of the lake, quiet lifestyle and interrupted downtown
lifestyle with no
undue downtown inconveniences, such as development. Along
with the transparency issues developed this atmosphere of suspicion.


I believe to this day that the self interest KCAL group, and some neighbouring residence ...backers of KCAL not only contributed to the cost overruns of the LVEC but indeed its marginalizing in terms of parking, opportunity costs, such as the sqft floor area that is now 30% smaller for the facility at the North Block. (For the same budget)

And I pose to you: Anglin Bay or North Block Site.........

If you had the choice to buy two homes, that are identical in its
features, but one is 30% smaller, has a worse view, less property and
less parking.. (For the same cost?)


And KCAL experts Mary Lou Adams - was also contacted recently and she spoke to the fact - that she had no idea KCAL even used her "google searches" on a 1 billion dollar project in New York's slum , to compare our tiny LVEC multipurpose centre. She also goes on to say "she has no experience with LVEC's either academically or hands on".

And funny enough she is KCAL's main "expert"? Since this was brought to KCAL's attention by Kingston Electors members - KCAL removed Kingston Electors "link" from their website. I wonder what Swift would say about this strategy? (Pernicious or what?)

Here are some real facts to check out:

Check out these web sites for the (real deal) on "multipurpose facilities"...

http://www.canadianspecialevents.com/

http://www.expoworldcanada.com

Its time (for council) to (move on) and focus, ..put our energy and our tax resources on more pressing issues:

Such as:

5000 jobs x $ 50,000 a year salaries leaving our region $ 250,000,000 million ! in LOSS to our local economy.

(As apposed to $ 4 million of investments in our waterfront environment, in
addition to looking at the "Memorial Centre" (which no one atKCAL uses or has been in)

Infrastructure and poverty forum with local agencies and how we can do a better job..
are the next issue, including Federal Support Funding for the LVEC.

Fast Facts:

Did you know, Kingston gets and spends $ 175,000,000 a year on social services?

Did you know, that The Agricultural Society of Kingston has a "permanent lease" of the Memorial Centre?

Did you know that Federal Funding is very likely to happen?

And unlike KCAL we want every ones suggestions, opinions...and our membership is growing fast!

Now you have been LVEC EDUCATED !