Kingston Concerned About
the LVEC
Currently known as the "KROCK Centre"
Formerly the "Kingston Regional Sports and Entertainment Centre" or KRSEC
Formerly the "Large Venue Entertainment Centre" or LVEC
Home News
Whig Standard Editorial -- Dec 1 2006
Councillors conundrum
The Whig-Standard
Editorial - Friday, December 01, 2006 Updated @ 11:24:26 PM
Cancel the downtown arena and entertainment centre? The notion was
raised again and again during the recent municipal election, and many of
those who will be sworn in on Dec. 5 believe that revisiting the arena
plan is a good idea.
Are they right? A document handed to new councillors this week suggests
they’re not.
It breaks down total spending to date; costs incurred but not yet
invoiced; and costs already committed to by the developer, EllisDon, for
the project at Barrack and Place D’Armes. If the arena is cancelled, the
document concludes, the city will lose anywhere from $8.1 million to
$13.4 million.
Considering that the project, if built, is supposed to clock in at $41.8
million, it would seem Kingston has done about 25 per cent of its
spending already.
The city document also, and separately, points out indirect costs: to
the downtown businesses that hoped to benefit from the arena, for
instance, and to the Kingston Frontenacs.
The figures make for a sobering read. And there is a little extra scary
stuff included just to drive the point home. Under "other impacts," the
document notes that if the project were cancelled, Kingston likely
wouldn’t get the provincial grant of $4 million that was earmarked for
the arena. (Of course, if we don’t build it, it won’t be a loss not to
get a grant for it.) The city also won’t get $3 million from the
Downtown Kingston BIA. (True again, but if we don’t move ahead with the
arena, we don’t need this either. And so on.) Meanwhile, even the city’s
high estimate doesn’t cover the potential legal costs associated with
cancellation.
Finally, there are these ominous words: "It should be noted that with
the cancellation of the project, all costs to be covered by the city
would have to be funded by reserve funds or by tax levies as there would
be no donations, grants or projected revenues from
operations to finance the expenditures."
In other words, if you cancel the arena, Mr. or Ms. Politician, be
prepared to raise taxes – with nothing to show for your action in the
end.
What isn’t covered in the document, meanwhile, is the infinitely more
complex problems associated with any attempt to move, rather than
cancel, the downtown project. Would the cost be as great? More? Would
everything have to start over or could the city build on existing
contracts and expertise? These questions have yet to be clarified.
The new council must carefully consider the financial figures it’s just
been given. But the mayor should convince council skeptics to support
the arena based on more than just fear of what could occur if they
don’t. He must remind them of the benefits a modern downtown venue could
bring. He must patiently and persuasively explain how the arena is
central to his plan to build up the commercial and industrial tax base
in order to lower pressures on residential taxes. Perhaps he could
produce a document as detailed as the city one, showing the hypothetical
effects of erecting the new downtown hotels and other businesses that
would be attracted to a city centre with a vibrant arena, a pleasing
central market square and a refurbished downtown theatre.
The arena, in other words, should be built not merely because we’re
afraid to stop it, but because it’s a great idea for Kingston.
Letters? Send them to whiged@thewhig.com