New Arena: Cease and Desist

Yesterday, Edmonton's City Council voted to cease all negotiations with the Katz Group.

Apparently, they finally saw the light after years of spending time and money on negotiations with a private company that ultimately proved fruitless. Katz tried to change the terms of the deal, used the media to make these statements of change, and then refused to meet with City Council.

Did City Council make the right decision in this instance? Yes. Do they deserve applause?

No.

We protest-types who were against the private-public partnership deal with the Katz Group from the beginning turned out to be right all along. Katz could not be trusted. Public money should not go to a private enterprise for its own profit.

City Council spent way too much time and resources trying to appeal someone who really, in the long run, doesn't give a rat's posterior about Edmonton. Daryl Katz is a businessman who cares about the bottom line - his bottom line - not what is good for the city.

Will there ever be a new arena? We don't know. If there is, it will hopefully be structured economically so that all profits go back to the City - not into the pockets of a billionaire.

I am still of the mindset that Edmonton doesn't need a new arena. Rexall Place is doing us just fine (though admittedly it will need a facelift at some point) and there is more to life than hockey.

In the meantime, there are roads that need to be repaired, neighbourhoods in need of revitalization, and an LRT that needs to be expanded. Let's spend OUR money on things that are important and will really make Edmonton a better place to live.

Big Trucks and the Downtown Arena

A friend of mine jokes every time he sees someone driving an oversized pickup truck. "Compensation issues," he says, while chuckling.

Daryl Katz has compensation issues, and the truck he is driving are the constant threats he makes of moving the Oilers out of Edmonton if he doesn't get his way with the City for the funding of his pet project: the downtown arena.

By now, most of you in Edmonton probably know that the Katzmeister dropped another wrench into negotiations, by insisting the City provide a $6 million annual subsidy for the operations of the arena. Let me clarify the indignity of this: the man is a billionaire, and he is asking for a subsidy? For his own project? That will be making him a profit?

I am one of the crowd who was against public funds for the arena in the first place. One of my concerns (shared by others) was that as plans moved along, Katz would keep finding reasons for needing more and more City money. Well, I hate to say "I told you so," but - I told you so. At least the City has not acquiesced yet. Yet.

This week's bombshell from Katz should be enough to prove to City Council that he cannot be trusted. Yes, he is going to go before Council to "explain himself" - but really, if anything was a warning sign, this is it. What is to stop him from, after ground is broken and construction begins, from finding some reason why more public funds are needed? Or from him pulling out altogether and leaving taxpayers to deal with the fall out?

The threat of Katz moving the Oilers - that big truck he is driving - seems real, and is a motivator. Even as someone who is not a sports person, I know losing the Oilers would hurt Edmonton. First of all, I don't think a team can be moved without the administration of the NHL approving the move. The market is saturated and there really are not a lot of places the Oilers could go.

The NHL is in the midst of a lock out. No hockey season at the moment. Are cities who actually have NHL teams that win games no longer "world class"? I think not. If Edmonton had no team, it would make us no less world class than we are now. Something else would rise to fill the void. The city is more than hockey.

In fact, an arena really makes no difference either to downtown revitalization or the city's standing as "world class" (which I put in quotation marks because, really - what does that mean? Who decides what "world class" actually is? And does it have to be the same for each city?). Over the next couple of months, Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney respectively will be performing at the Rexall. In the world of musical entertainment, it doesn't get much bigger than those two. And Edmonton attracted them - without an arena. Who would have thought it?

City Council should call Katz's bluff. This isn't "Katzmonton." A billionnaire should not be trying to push City Council around, regardless of how big his truck is. because in the end, the truck is just a prop.

Buena Vista/Sir Wilfrid Laurier Park Master Plan: Share the Trails

Dog walkers and cyclists need to cooperate. The future of the Buena Vista off leash area is at stake.

The City of Edmonton is proposing some pretty significant changes to the Buena Vista/Sir Wilfrid Laurier Park area in the west end. Buena Vista in particular is significant because it is an off leash park that is very popular with dog owners.

I have often enjoyed riding my bike around Sir Wilfrid Laurier Park and attending picnics there. Other than maybe some road upgrades and modernization of the washroom facilities, I don't really have any complaints.

I do have some concerns with the plans for the Buena Vista area. They include adding lots of parking stalls, paving trails, and building fences to separate dog walkers and cyclists.

Buena Vista is one of the few areas of natural green space in the city. There are some places where you can stand amongst the trees and bushes, and it literally feels like you are out in the countryside. Adding a plethora of parking will diminish this green space. As Joni MItchell sings, they plan to "pave paradise and put up a parking lot."

Paving the trails and building separation boundaries seems to favour cyclists. I personally enjoy riding on the gravel trails - again, it makes me feel like I am somewhere else. I can ride on paved roads almost anywhere else in the city.

What the area needs is more cooperation between the dog walkers and cyclists. As a cyclist, it pains me to say that there are many irresponsible people on two wheels riding through Buena Vista. They speed through there with little regard for anyone else, and paving the trails will only encourage this behaviour.

Instead of separations, education and communication aimed at sharing the area is needed. The City should not be trying to change something that is already wonderful - I am also a dog walker, and most of the people I have spoken to down there are not in favour of the changes at all.

The one change I support are adding washrooms to the Buena Vista off leash area. There are a couple of porta potties here and there, which are not sufficient for a park of that size and usage.

The City should better use its planners and funds to improve the road leading down to Buena Vista, Sir Wilfried Laurier Park, and the Valley Zoo. It is in terrible condition and is an embarassment to the City, that people heading to one of Edmonton's main attractions should have to experience it. As a cyclist, I find all of the potholes and unevenness dangerous.

The City is asking stakeholders to complete a survey by August 3. Dog walkers and those otherwise not in favour of what could potentially happen are being encouraged to support Concept 1 (more off leash to the north) and oppose Concepts 2 and 3. Be sure to fill out the comments and explain why dramatically changing the face of Buena Vista is a bad idea.