The following appeared in the August 11, 2008, edition of the Herald:
News media, as well as trustees on the Okanagan–Skaha school board, have asked where the opposition to the proposed demolition of the Penticton Secondary School gym and auditorium been for the last 2 ½ to four years. Well I will tell you: It has been loud and clear but ignored by the board.
Four years ago I heard Pen Hi was to be replaced and the old school was falling apart, according to the board. So I went on a tour of the school and found, on the contrary, very serviceable structures, especially when looking at the gym and auditorium. In August 2004 I went to see the secretary treasurer of the school board inquiring if there had been any thought to saving valuable assets like the gym and auditorium. He was less than cordial when I asked to see the proposed plans and contemptuous when my suggestion of keeping these buildings was suggested. He told me the bu8ldings were expensive to maintain, in terrible condition and would be torn down.
I was very surprised that a public-officials had such little respect for citizens and certainly left with the impression that he did not want those buildings to remain no matter what. So, I know for a fact there was opposition to the demolition plans at least since August 200r since I voiced it personally.
Many citizens from all ages and backgrounds including teachers, students, seniors, business people and parents put their signatures to a petition asking for a delay in the demolition. Countless letters have been written by Pen Hi alumni, artists performing in the auditorium and Penticton citizens. Most recently taxpayers petitioned the courts asking for a postponement of the demolition. There has been and there still is opposition to the loss of the gym and auditorium. The school board has just neglected to listen.
Some people have remained silent on this issue publicly because they are afraid of retaliation by the board. This is understandable particularly when you see the vindictive way they have replied to the ordinary citizens that dared question their demolition plans in court. They have actually said they are considering asking these people to pay for the board’s court costs. That is a significant sum since the board did not hesitate in hiring a very expensive Vancouver lawyer to prepare their case with your tax dollars.
This school board has been manipulative and untruthful in carrying out its Pen-Hi re-development plan. They have excluded taxpayers. City council has supported the board’s tactics and plans, providing their own lawyer to accompany the board for three days in court in Kelowna. The council is also clearly supporting the South Okanagan Performing Arts Centre by buying property and hiring consultants. So how can the city make an impartial evaluation of the gym and auditorium when they believe their retention conflicts with their SOPAC plans?
Opposition is growing as more people realize what will be lost, excellent public facilities which would take millions to replace. Listen to the public. They have some excellent ideas for using these buildings. Why not incorporate them with the Shatford building which was saved for $4million but without a designated purpose? This heritage building, along with the gym and auditorium, would make a practical and affordable core for community arts and sports activities. City council may not be able to afford a replacement for these buildings for some time since the South Okanagan Events Centre is currently more than $20 million over budget. The gym is a safe place for kids to play and stay healthy after school, providing an alternative to just hanging out around town somewhere. If extra school parking is urgently needed, then tear down the far less valuable Learning Centre and Alternate School and move their services to the empty Shatford building.
The city concil and the school board have acted as if they hold unlimited power and are not answerable to the public. The gym and auditorium should not be demolished at this time. There is opposition, loud and clear. Just wait until the next election.
Showing posts with label letters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label letters. Show all posts
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Dodi Morrison: Action needed
The following appeared in the August 05, 2008, edition of the Western News:
Probably generations younger than mine will not know the name Anna Russell. She was an English singer and humourist who delighted in poking fun at all pompous institutions. One of her most hilarious renditions was a take-off of Wagner’s Ring Cycle. (It really is a funny story.) At one point one of the characters does something he immediately regrets.
“And then, of course,” says Anna, “he’s sorry; (so like a man),” she adds. And that reminded me of a downcast article I read in a Calgary paper last year. The city council was grovelling over the fact that it had torn down a 90-year-old school — against strong community opposition. The backlash was such that they had quickly proposed a moratorium on tearing down older buildings — well, buildings older than 25 years, in fact — without public consultation. A bit extreme, you say? Well, having huge community opposition is quite uncomfortable.
Two people told me recently the province had offered to build affordable housing if the city would donate the land, and was refused. I gave their remarks little credit, until a third person, certainly in a position to know, told me the same thing. Yet they gave away land and money for a concert hall. I love classical music, dance etc. — but I long more for a way to keep young families and much-needed service persons in Penticton. And I am truly worried about the obesity I see so commonly, especially among the very young. Are these not legitimate concerns?
Everywhere we are hearing, “Don’t give up.” All very well — but a few shoulders have carried this load for all of you.
Take action.
Probably generations younger than mine will not know the name Anna Russell. She was an English singer and humourist who delighted in poking fun at all pompous institutions. One of her most hilarious renditions was a take-off of Wagner’s Ring Cycle. (It really is a funny story.) At one point one of the characters does something he immediately regrets.
“And then, of course,” says Anna, “he’s sorry; (so like a man),” she adds. And that reminded me of a downcast article I read in a Calgary paper last year. The city council was grovelling over the fact that it had torn down a 90-year-old school — against strong community opposition. The backlash was such that they had quickly proposed a moratorium on tearing down older buildings — well, buildings older than 25 years, in fact — without public consultation. A bit extreme, you say? Well, having huge community opposition is quite uncomfortable.
Two people told me recently the province had offered to build affordable housing if the city would donate the land, and was refused. I gave their remarks little credit, until a third person, certainly in a position to know, told me the same thing. Yet they gave away land and money for a concert hall. I love classical music, dance etc. — but I long more for a way to keep young families and much-needed service persons in Penticton. And I am truly worried about the obesity I see so commonly, especially among the very young. Are these not legitimate concerns?
Everywhere we are hearing, “Don’t give up.” All very well — but a few shoulders have carried this load for all of you.
Take action.
Ron Barillaro: Stand up and be counted
The following appeared in the August 05, 2008 edition of the Western News:
The Okanagan Skaha school board must be very satisfied with themselves, now that the courts have upheld their decision to demolish the gym and auditorium at Penticton Secondary School.
Once again, the concept of might makes right comes to the fore. The problem I have with this is: how can anyone who was elected on, and purports to believe in, democratic principles, in clear conscience, even entertain such an attitude?
If the contract has been let and the ultimate end is near, what would happen if a challenge to the court decision were made and the destruction had already started? I shudder to think. Would, or for that matter could, restoration be made? Scary thoughts, don’t you think.
It may seem too late for salvation. That is, only if you believe it is. If you are a “preservationist keener,” get off your duff and make your sentiment known. Flood the school board office with calls. Light up the switchboard. Get focus groups and protest at the board office. Make you sentiment known.
Don’t just sit in the wings and complain while taking no action to rectify things. Urge the protest group to appeal the decision of the judge. Be proactive and, if need be, reactive. Don’t just stand there, do something if you’re a believer in cultural values and history. I, for one, have no interest in city fathers pursuing a white elephant arts and entertainment centre that we can ill afford, irrespective of the far-fetched promises our elected pundits seem to make saying that it will be funded by governments and casino funds and corporate sponsors.
I wish to inform the city fathers that not everyone just fell off of the turnip truck.
The far-reaching consequences will be felt by our kids, and our kids’ kids for our illustrious events centre. True, it will be here long after your terms have ended, for the most part. You can always look back and say, as new administrations bring in policy, we’re not responsible for that. That’s what new administrations can say about your faux pas.
From my perspective, I see two choices for us as concerned taxpayers. The first is to bury our heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich and pretend that whatever happens won’t really affect our daily lives now or in the future. The second is that we can stand and be counted by supporting a call for an appeal and hopefully achieve the desired result of preservation or a re-think on the board’s part. After all, it is our tax dollars that they are playing this game with.
Bottom line is this — if you are content to sit on the fence, the fence will fall. If you are prepared to bolster the fence, it will stand. Stand and be counted if you believe in the school preservation. Do it now, whatever you can. I am.
The Okanagan Skaha school board must be very satisfied with themselves, now that the courts have upheld their decision to demolish the gym and auditorium at Penticton Secondary School.
Once again, the concept of might makes right comes to the fore. The problem I have with this is: how can anyone who was elected on, and purports to believe in, democratic principles, in clear conscience, even entertain such an attitude?
If the contract has been let and the ultimate end is near, what would happen if a challenge to the court decision were made and the destruction had already started? I shudder to think. Would, or for that matter could, restoration be made? Scary thoughts, don’t you think.
It may seem too late for salvation. That is, only if you believe it is. If you are a “preservationist keener,” get off your duff and make your sentiment known. Flood the school board office with calls. Light up the switchboard. Get focus groups and protest at the board office. Make you sentiment known.
Don’t just sit in the wings and complain while taking no action to rectify things. Urge the protest group to appeal the decision of the judge. Be proactive and, if need be, reactive. Don’t just stand there, do something if you’re a believer in cultural values and history. I, for one, have no interest in city fathers pursuing a white elephant arts and entertainment centre that we can ill afford, irrespective of the far-fetched promises our elected pundits seem to make saying that it will be funded by governments and casino funds and corporate sponsors.
I wish to inform the city fathers that not everyone just fell off of the turnip truck.
The far-reaching consequences will be felt by our kids, and our kids’ kids for our illustrious events centre. True, it will be here long after your terms have ended, for the most part. You can always look back and say, as new administrations bring in policy, we’re not responsible for that. That’s what new administrations can say about your faux pas.
From my perspective, I see two choices for us as concerned taxpayers. The first is to bury our heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich and pretend that whatever happens won’t really affect our daily lives now or in the future. The second is that we can stand and be counted by supporting a call for an appeal and hopefully achieve the desired result of preservation or a re-think on the board’s part. After all, it is our tax dollars that they are playing this game with.
Bottom line is this — if you are content to sit on the fence, the fence will fall. If you are prepared to bolster the fence, it will stand. Stand and be counted if you believe in the school preservation. Do it now, whatever you can. I am.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Zorka Kvestich: School board ignored electorate
The following appeared in the 24 July, 2008, edition of the Herald:
The School Board has not been fair. It thinks that two small meetings and a website was enough notification to tell the people about the new Pen High development and the demolition of the old school. Many people in Penticton are like me, retired, and do not use a computer. We expected our public officials to have our best interests in mind. However, it seems like the Board did not really want to hear from people like me, but we are taxpayers and want a say in assets that we believe are economical and can give many more years of valuable contribution to our community. The taxpayers should have a say on what happens to the north gym and auditorium. The Board has not accepted any suggestions that might include saving these buildings. They have not listened to the people that elected them. They are trying to destroy these structures in September just two months before the next civic election to avoid discussion and a possible referendum which would allow the majority to decide whether the buildings should be kept or not. The Board is actually asking a court to ignore the significant public opposition and allow the demolition of these buildings. This is unbelievable.
The taxpayers of town, many of whom are pensioners like myself, are already paying additional taxes because of the new South Okanagan Events Centre. I supported a referendum for this project after listening to the significant public discussion surrounding the proposal. A few years earlier, a plan to demolish the Memorial Arena was squashed by public input and the building was saved. The old arena is still giving excellent service to Penticton.
The Pen High development did not follow a similar excellent opportunity for public discussion. In fact, it actually appeared to be the opposite, with the School Board only informing the town what it was planning to do. The articles in the paper certainly suggested to me that the final choice about the gym and auditorium had already been made. I do not understand why two expensive buildings that we already own, with a small amount of renovation, cannot be utilized. It is the practical and economical solution to give our city much needed recreational and artistic venues. New facilities can be built later, with public support when the opportunity and funding is available.
I have attended scores of concerts in the auditorium while a member of the Okanagan Symphony and Community Concert Series. I watched my daughters during high school and now grand daughters playing basketball through the Penticton Basketball Camp in the gymnasium. I do not support destroying these facilities to make room for the parking lot of the new school. A new place can be found for parking, but these buildings cannot be easily replaced. I think that the Board has not represented the taxpayer’s best interests at all and should be held accountable in the next election. It is obligated to listen to the public and consider the practical alternatives that have been repeatedly made by concerned citizens and suffering taxpayers.
The School Board has not been fair. It thinks that two small meetings and a website was enough notification to tell the people about the new Pen High development and the demolition of the old school. Many people in Penticton are like me, retired, and do not use a computer. We expected our public officials to have our best interests in mind. However, it seems like the Board did not really want to hear from people like me, but we are taxpayers and want a say in assets that we believe are economical and can give many more years of valuable contribution to our community. The taxpayers should have a say on what happens to the north gym and auditorium. The Board has not accepted any suggestions that might include saving these buildings. They have not listened to the people that elected them. They are trying to destroy these structures in September just two months before the next civic election to avoid discussion and a possible referendum which would allow the majority to decide whether the buildings should be kept or not. The Board is actually asking a court to ignore the significant public opposition and allow the demolition of these buildings. This is unbelievable.
The taxpayers of town, many of whom are pensioners like myself, are already paying additional taxes because of the new South Okanagan Events Centre. I supported a referendum for this project after listening to the significant public discussion surrounding the proposal. A few years earlier, a plan to demolish the Memorial Arena was squashed by public input and the building was saved. The old arena is still giving excellent service to Penticton.
The Pen High development did not follow a similar excellent opportunity for public discussion. In fact, it actually appeared to be the opposite, with the School Board only informing the town what it was planning to do. The articles in the paper certainly suggested to me that the final choice about the gym and auditorium had already been made. I do not understand why two expensive buildings that we already own, with a small amount of renovation, cannot be utilized. It is the practical and economical solution to give our city much needed recreational and artistic venues. New facilities can be built later, with public support when the opportunity and funding is available.
I have attended scores of concerts in the auditorium while a member of the Okanagan Symphony and Community Concert Series. I watched my daughters during high school and now grand daughters playing basketball through the Penticton Basketball Camp in the gymnasium. I do not support destroying these facilities to make room for the parking lot of the new school. A new place can be found for parking, but these buildings cannot be easily replaced. I think that the Board has not represented the taxpayer’s best interests at all and should be held accountable in the next election. It is obligated to listen to the public and consider the practical alternatives that have been repeatedly made by concerned citizens and suffering taxpayers.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Adeline Rheaume: Court injunction for buildings necessary step
The following letter appeared in the July 15th Western News. A slightly different version also appeared in the Herald:
Why is it necessary for taxpayers of this area to take such extraordinary steps as asking for a court injunction to stop the destruction of the Pen Hi gym and auditorium?
It’s because we have such an extraordinary situation here, with tens of millions of dollars worth of valuable assets in danger of being hauled to the landfill. (And then we might well be forced into the position of replacing them.) All this with the distinct possibility of an economic “correction” facing us.
There is very strong evidence that an overwhelming majority of Penticton and area residents (approximately 97 per cent) do not want this to happen.
Yet our six school trustees, who speak with one strangely identical voice, plus five of our city council (everyone except Vassilaki and Ashton) have decided to ignore the usual democratic process and act against the wishes of this vast majority.
If they challenge these statements, we challenge them (if they cannot see fit to call a referendum) to sit down and carry out another opinion survey. With us.
When we conducted our survey, with every age group from high school to senior participating, over 2,600 said do not do it.
Only 85 said yes. If they can come up with that many people agreeing to the destruction of these facilities, I’m sure some of us would be willing to autograph the wrecking ball. That’s how confident we are the people of this area are completely against this insanity.
So what we have here is a handful of elected people who have forgotten that they represent us, the electorate. When there is such a huge disconnect between their thinking and what the general public wants, its time they did some soul searching. Especially when they are embarking upon something totally irreversible.
Working together, the city, school board and the South Okanagan Performing Arts Facility Society could have made this work on behalf of the community, serving both adults and students for decades to come. They chose not to.
That is when we began hearing, “PLEASE. Something has to be done.”
Remember. There are no grants or funding of any kind. Just people digging into their own pockets because they do not want to see pieces of Penticton destroyed and the city thrown into unnecessary debt.
And now on the lighter side. Overheard in Kelowna: “Good thing Penticton officials were not in charge of the new bridge. They would have taken it down first then started figuring out how to replace it.”
Why is it necessary for taxpayers of this area to take such extraordinary steps as asking for a court injunction to stop the destruction of the Pen Hi gym and auditorium?
It’s because we have such an extraordinary situation here, with tens of millions of dollars worth of valuable assets in danger of being hauled to the landfill. (And then we might well be forced into the position of replacing them.) All this with the distinct possibility of an economic “correction” facing us.
There is very strong evidence that an overwhelming majority of Penticton and area residents (approximately 97 per cent) do not want this to happen.
Yet our six school trustees, who speak with one strangely identical voice, plus five of our city council (everyone except Vassilaki and Ashton) have decided to ignore the usual democratic process and act against the wishes of this vast majority.
If they challenge these statements, we challenge them (if they cannot see fit to call a referendum) to sit down and carry out another opinion survey. With us.
When we conducted our survey, with every age group from high school to senior participating, over 2,600 said do not do it.
Only 85 said yes. If they can come up with that many people agreeing to the destruction of these facilities, I’m sure some of us would be willing to autograph the wrecking ball. That’s how confident we are the people of this area are completely against this insanity.
So what we have here is a handful of elected people who have forgotten that they represent us, the electorate. When there is such a huge disconnect between their thinking and what the general public wants, its time they did some soul searching. Especially when they are embarking upon something totally irreversible.
Working together, the city, school board and the South Okanagan Performing Arts Facility Society could have made this work on behalf of the community, serving both adults and students for decades to come. They chose not to.
That is when we began hearing, “PLEASE. Something has to be done.”
Remember. There are no grants or funding of any kind. Just people digging into their own pockets because they do not want to see pieces of Penticton destroyed and the city thrown into unnecessary debt.
And now on the lighter side. Overheard in Kelowna: “Good thing Penticton officials were not in charge of the new bridge. They would have taken it down first then started figuring out how to replace it.”
Friday, July 4, 2008
Anita Fashler: Not worthless after all
A slightly edited version of the following appeared in the July 4th, 2008, edition of the Penticton Herald:
Why does the school board and city council call the north gym and auditorium “worthless, surplus to the school’s needs” (Penticton Herald, 6 June 2008)? Why did they pursue an over half million dollar upgrade of the gym while at the same time planning it’s demolition? Why are all practical, common sense alternatives made by numerous public groups representing the taxpayers of Penticton immediately rejected by your elected officials? Many local groups and individuals have documented the usefulness and relevancy of both the gym and the auditorium. In fact, the recent court challenge requesting a re-evaluation of the demolition of these buildings includes sworn affidavits giving specific facts and figures. Alternatively the School Board and City Council are anxious to complete their original plans for demolition before the next civic election. It is difficult to view this decision as anything more than arbitrary and a grave misjudgment of public assets.
Why would the auditorium be viewed as “worthless” when Penticton has only one other functioning arts venue? For example, the City of Vancouver has 15 different arts and cultural venues. In addition to these public theatres, the Vancouver School Board has five high schools with auditoriums seating from 520 to 742. Four of these five facilities are decades old. The recently re-built Magee Senior Secondary included a new auditorium with 550 seats, replacing their previous facility. Apparently in other cities, high school auditoriums are not considered “worthless, surplus to school needs”. Penticton has two arts venues, including the Cleland Theatre and the joint school/community Pen High auditorium. The Pen High auditorium has seating for 743.
The high school auditoriums in Vancouver are used for the schools but are also rented for public use on weekdays, weekends, and during vacations. When rented, these facilities are providing revenue to the School Board. Rental rates during the school year range from $404 for the first four hours on weekdays to $834 on weekends. These rates increase during the summer months. The Penticton School Board has admitted to not vigorously advertising for out of school rentals, no doubt to support their opinion that the building is “worthless”.
The Penticton School Board and the City Council are powerful bodies. As such, they have pursued their demolition agenda without listening to their constituents. However, the public should know that they themselves are the ultimate power, with the Board and Council merely their elected representatives. The redevelopment of Pen High was presented over 4 years ago. With persistent public pressure and exposure, the people of Penticton are now becoming aware that this plan was not all undertaken in good faith.
The gym and auditorium are neither worthless nor surplus to school and community needs. For example, the auditorium has unique acoustic properties (Jonathan Sevy, letter to city council and school board, October, 2003). Several employees of the city’s park and recreation department have openly admitted that the current demand for prime-time gym space in Penticton exceeds capacity (Michael Brydon, April, 2007). If the auditorium and gym were marketed, they could raise funds for the school and the community or help to pay for their own maintenance and operation. How can burying these buildings in a landfill be responsible use of tax dollars?
The plans prepared by community experts to retain the gym and the auditoriums were based on detailed analysis, not sentimentality. They mapped out alternative configurations that would not affect the new school. The response from the School Board was “it is still our property and still our decision” (Brydon, April, 2007). The Board itself did no feasibility studies on possible retention of these buildings during any of their planning decisions. Your elected officials have never wavered in 4 years: they need a parking lot and it has to be exactly where these buildings now stand.
The future of the gym and auditorium must be based on honest documented data and reflect the wishes of the common sense, practical and responsible taxpayers of Penticton. It should not be left to the arbitrary whims of politicians near the end of their mandate.
Anita Kvestich Fashler (Vancouver)
Why does the school board and city council call the north gym and auditorium “worthless, surplus to the school’s needs” (Penticton Herald, 6 June 2008)? Why did they pursue an over half million dollar upgrade of the gym while at the same time planning it’s demolition? Why are all practical, common sense alternatives made by numerous public groups representing the taxpayers of Penticton immediately rejected by your elected officials? Many local groups and individuals have documented the usefulness and relevancy of both the gym and the auditorium. In fact, the recent court challenge requesting a re-evaluation of the demolition of these buildings includes sworn affidavits giving specific facts and figures. Alternatively the School Board and City Council are anxious to complete their original plans for demolition before the next civic election. It is difficult to view this decision as anything more than arbitrary and a grave misjudgment of public assets.
Why would the auditorium be viewed as “worthless” when Penticton has only one other functioning arts venue? For example, the City of Vancouver has 15 different arts and cultural venues. In addition to these public theatres, the Vancouver School Board has five high schools with auditoriums seating from 520 to 742. Four of these five facilities are decades old. The recently re-built Magee Senior Secondary included a new auditorium with 550 seats, replacing their previous facility. Apparently in other cities, high school auditoriums are not considered “worthless, surplus to school needs”. Penticton has two arts venues, including the Cleland Theatre and the joint school/community Pen High auditorium. The Pen High auditorium has seating for 743.
The high school auditoriums in Vancouver are used for the schools but are also rented for public use on weekdays, weekends, and during vacations. When rented, these facilities are providing revenue to the School Board. Rental rates during the school year range from $404 for the first four hours on weekdays to $834 on weekends. These rates increase during the summer months. The Penticton School Board has admitted to not vigorously advertising for out of school rentals, no doubt to support their opinion that the building is “worthless”.
The Penticton School Board and the City Council are powerful bodies. As such, they have pursued their demolition agenda without listening to their constituents. However, the public should know that they themselves are the ultimate power, with the Board and Council merely their elected representatives. The redevelopment of Pen High was presented over 4 years ago. With persistent public pressure and exposure, the people of Penticton are now becoming aware that this plan was not all undertaken in good faith.
The gym and auditorium are neither worthless nor surplus to school and community needs. For example, the auditorium has unique acoustic properties (Jonathan Sevy, letter to city council and school board, October, 2003). Several employees of the city’s park and recreation department have openly admitted that the current demand for prime-time gym space in Penticton exceeds capacity (Michael Brydon, April, 2007). If the auditorium and gym were marketed, they could raise funds for the school and the community or help to pay for their own maintenance and operation. How can burying these buildings in a landfill be responsible use of tax dollars?
The plans prepared by community experts to retain the gym and the auditoriums were based on detailed analysis, not sentimentality. They mapped out alternative configurations that would not affect the new school. The response from the School Board was “it is still our property and still our decision” (Brydon, April, 2007). The Board itself did no feasibility studies on possible retention of these buildings during any of their planning decisions. Your elected officials have never wavered in 4 years: they need a parking lot and it has to be exactly where these buildings now stand.
The future of the gym and auditorium must be based on honest documented data and reflect the wishes of the common sense, practical and responsible taxpayers of Penticton. It should not be left to the arbitrary whims of politicians near the end of their mandate.
Anita Kvestich Fashler (Vancouver)
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Jonathan Sevy: Three Tenors or Three Taiko Drums?
The following is essentially a copy of the letter originally sent on 29 October, 2003 to Penticton City Council, School Board 67 Board, and MLA Bill Barisoff:
RE: Penticton Secondary School Auditorium Friends, In 1999 I returned to Penticton after a nearly 30 year absence. My wife and I joined the Community Concert Association, and have been attending those concerts regularly in the Pen High auditorium.
We typically sit in the front or second row. Last year Quartango played for us, and their music included many subtle elements that I thought must surely be lost to those sitting farther back in the hall. After intermission I went back and sat in the back row, just to satisfy my curiosity. There was no electrical amplification. To my amazement, the sound quality was as excellent at the rear as at the front. There were 600-700 people there, yet the music volume was nearly undiminished by the distance. In fact, the only difference I could detect was a gentle blending of the sounds, where the instruments sounded more distinct from each other when seated 10 feet away from the performers.
Between the next few pieces, I moved up about 10 rows each time and listened from those positions. Except for small wedges of seating just at the extreme ends of the front 3-4 rows, the sound throughout that hall was exquisite. Not good, exquisite. I commented on my findings to Mr. Hobden, President of the Community Concerts, and to the stage manager. Each of them confirmed my impressions, and mentioned performers who had made similar observations.
One renowned musician had only recently commented to a group of students that the sound in our high school auditorium is superior the Met. Very few of the excellent professional musicians that we have heard in the past 5 years have requested amplification. None needed it.
The Pen High auditorium is unusual. In fact, it is extraordinary. It is a treasure. I make that statement without sentimentality, but as a semi-professional musician myself with some personal stage experience. I have sat in celebrated concert halls in Canada, the US and Germany -- including the Mormon tabernacle. It may seem incredible to you, but in my opinion the acoustics in the Pen High auditorium are just as impressive as what I heard in the best of them.
To destroy the fortunate confluence of conditions which has produced this remarkable place is folly. To borrow millions of dollars to construct an electronic hall that will require tens of thousands of dollars of tinkering and upgrading every year, plus unknown tens of thousands for professional sound engineers at virtually every performance forever--folly. Cost, cost, cost, and no real benefit. We have attended and fully enjoyed a number of concerts, sans electric, while basketball games were being played in the gym across the hallway.
As a performer, I can tell you that the single most frightening part of going on stage is knowing that the person in the sound booth controls the performance. Unfortunately, many sound experts are careless or ignorant of their equipment, and most are careless or ignorant about how the performer wants to sound.. The results are far too often disappointing. The typical sound engineer drives to work with his boom-box car stereo system blaring, then cranks up the bass of every performer, making the Three Tenors sound like the Three Taiko Drums. Our city will regret relying on fickle electronics rather than stable, dependable acoustics. Our amateur and student performers will be particularly deprived by the high-tech systems that are being considered as replacements for the current auditorium.
Politicians love to borrow and spend money, leaving a legacy of debt for their constituents' children and grandchildren. I, for one, heartily disapprove. If you must alter the Pen High auditorium, please use a gentle touch. It can and should be celebrated as an ongoing source of joy to our community for generations.
Jonathan B. Sevy
RE: Penticton Secondary School Auditorium Friends, In 1999 I returned to Penticton after a nearly 30 year absence. My wife and I joined the Community Concert Association, and have been attending those concerts regularly in the Pen High auditorium.
We typically sit in the front or second row. Last year Quartango played for us, and their music included many subtle elements that I thought must surely be lost to those sitting farther back in the hall. After intermission I went back and sat in the back row, just to satisfy my curiosity. There was no electrical amplification. To my amazement, the sound quality was as excellent at the rear as at the front. There were 600-700 people there, yet the music volume was nearly undiminished by the distance. In fact, the only difference I could detect was a gentle blending of the sounds, where the instruments sounded more distinct from each other when seated 10 feet away from the performers.
Between the next few pieces, I moved up about 10 rows each time and listened from those positions. Except for small wedges of seating just at the extreme ends of the front 3-4 rows, the sound throughout that hall was exquisite. Not good, exquisite. I commented on my findings to Mr. Hobden, President of the Community Concerts, and to the stage manager. Each of them confirmed my impressions, and mentioned performers who had made similar observations.
One renowned musician had only recently commented to a group of students that the sound in our high school auditorium is superior the Met. Very few of the excellent professional musicians that we have heard in the past 5 years have requested amplification. None needed it.
The Pen High auditorium is unusual. In fact, it is extraordinary. It is a treasure. I make that statement without sentimentality, but as a semi-professional musician myself with some personal stage experience. I have sat in celebrated concert halls in Canada, the US and Germany -- including the Mormon tabernacle. It may seem incredible to you, but in my opinion the acoustics in the Pen High auditorium are just as impressive as what I heard in the best of them.
To destroy the fortunate confluence of conditions which has produced this remarkable place is folly. To borrow millions of dollars to construct an electronic hall that will require tens of thousands of dollars of tinkering and upgrading every year, plus unknown tens of thousands for professional sound engineers at virtually every performance forever--folly. Cost, cost, cost, and no real benefit. We have attended and fully enjoyed a number of concerts, sans electric, while basketball games were being played in the gym across the hallway.
As a performer, I can tell you that the single most frightening part of going on stage is knowing that the person in the sound booth controls the performance. Unfortunately, many sound experts are careless or ignorant of their equipment, and most are careless or ignorant about how the performer wants to sound.. The results are far too often disappointing. The typical sound engineer drives to work with his boom-box car stereo system blaring, then cranks up the bass of every performer, making the Three Tenors sound like the Three Taiko Drums. Our city will regret relying on fickle electronics rather than stable, dependable acoustics. Our amateur and student performers will be particularly deprived by the high-tech systems that are being considered as replacements for the current auditorium.
Politicians love to borrow and spend money, leaving a legacy of debt for their constituents' children and grandchildren. I, for one, heartily disapprove. If you must alter the Pen High auditorium, please use a gentle touch. It can and should be celebrated as an ongoing source of joy to our community for generations.
Jonathan B. Sevy
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
David Dewar: What these spaces can foster
Last week I took the opportunity to come home to Penticton to say a fond farewell to “Old Pen Hi”. As I walked through the gym and sat in the auditorium I recognized that since graduation in 1970 a major portion of the arc of my life had begun in those two spaces. And so I feel it is important to write to you in support of saving the auditorium and gymnasium complex from being terribly wasted.
When I went to UBC I intended to be a teacher and I began a degree in Physical Education and History. My years at Pen Hi were filled with sports, particularly basketball as I played for the Lakers in grade 11 and 12 so choosing Phys Ed was a cinch. But after my first year at the University I realized I needed a new minor subject. I remembered the fun of my drama classes and the production of “The Music Man” and promptly dropped History in favour of Theatre. I’ve never looked back. I completed my degree and have worked in the theatre, film and television ever since. And without the confidence that those high school shows gave me I might never have considered a career in entertainment. One of my classmates at theatre school was Nicola Cavendish who spoke so wonderfully at the farewell event and its with some pride that I recall that we started together on that auditorium stage at Pen Hi. I have now spent more that 30 years in the entertainment industry first as an actor and dancer and later as a producer and director in film and television all over the world and it all grew out of those two spaces at Pen Hi.
I know that a new gym is part of the new school and I’m sure that it will give great service. But in any school, and always in a busy community there is never enough space to provide for all of the groups that need a place to play. I understand also that the new school will have classrooms of some sort for drama. But there is no substitute for a real theatre as a place to perform, to build sets, to learn lighting and to inspire an audience. The real thing happens in a theatre and once the theatre you have is gone you may never get it back. So these two spaces are not just important to the school but to the whole community. These buildings exist and they can galvanize community support for their restoration just as they have done for their defense. You have a real opportunity to retain a significant resource for the school and for the city and I urge you to seize it.
At the event on Tuesday there was a lot of pride expressed about the accomplishments of the school over its many years. The fine students it produced, their credit to the community and the achievement of the teachers, administrators and parents who supported each student year by year, encouraging them to stay in school and do their best. Look at the guests who were invited to speak, Cameron Phillips, Nicola Cavendish and Nikos Theodosakis. Its no surprise that each of them spoke well, and no surprise that each of them recognized their time on the auditorium stage as the starting point of their careers. Every school has its unusual characters, sometimes they are students who just don’t fit the usual mold. In my experience, and I have taught in universities and colleges across the country, sports and the arts are the only activities some kids have that keep them in school long enough to graduate.
In the final analysis why should these types of spaces be so important to the development of our young people and the enrichment of our community. Because today more than ever our world needs what these kinds of spaces can foster. A gymnasium and a theatre are exactly the places where kids learn some of life’s most important lessons. They learn to work together, they communicate, they struggle, they share their feelings and their ideas, they learn that no one on a stage or a gym floor will be successful alone and that its only as a team that they will achieve the triumph they seek.
So I urge you to find a way to save these spaces for future generations, to make them a continuing resource to the students and the community. This is an opportunity, please don’t waste it.
David Dewar
Class of 1970
When I went to UBC I intended to be a teacher and I began a degree in Physical Education and History. My years at Pen Hi were filled with sports, particularly basketball as I played for the Lakers in grade 11 and 12 so choosing Phys Ed was a cinch. But after my first year at the University I realized I needed a new minor subject. I remembered the fun of my drama classes and the production of “The Music Man” and promptly dropped History in favour of Theatre. I’ve never looked back. I completed my degree and have worked in the theatre, film and television ever since. And without the confidence that those high school shows gave me I might never have considered a career in entertainment. One of my classmates at theatre school was Nicola Cavendish who spoke so wonderfully at the farewell event and its with some pride that I recall that we started together on that auditorium stage at Pen Hi. I have now spent more that 30 years in the entertainment industry first as an actor and dancer and later as a producer and director in film and television all over the world and it all grew out of those two spaces at Pen Hi.
I know that a new gym is part of the new school and I’m sure that it will give great service. But in any school, and always in a busy community there is never enough space to provide for all of the groups that need a place to play. I understand also that the new school will have classrooms of some sort for drama. But there is no substitute for a real theatre as a place to perform, to build sets, to learn lighting and to inspire an audience. The real thing happens in a theatre and once the theatre you have is gone you may never get it back. So these two spaces are not just important to the school but to the whole community. These buildings exist and they can galvanize community support for their restoration just as they have done for their defense. You have a real opportunity to retain a significant resource for the school and for the city and I urge you to seize it.
At the event on Tuesday there was a lot of pride expressed about the accomplishments of the school over its many years. The fine students it produced, their credit to the community and the achievement of the teachers, administrators and parents who supported each student year by year, encouraging them to stay in school and do their best. Look at the guests who were invited to speak, Cameron Phillips, Nicola Cavendish and Nikos Theodosakis. Its no surprise that each of them spoke well, and no surprise that each of them recognized their time on the auditorium stage as the starting point of their careers. Every school has its unusual characters, sometimes they are students who just don’t fit the usual mold. In my experience, and I have taught in universities and colleges across the country, sports and the arts are the only activities some kids have that keep them in school long enough to graduate.
In the final analysis why should these types of spaces be so important to the development of our young people and the enrichment of our community. Because today more than ever our world needs what these kinds of spaces can foster. A gymnasium and a theatre are exactly the places where kids learn some of life’s most important lessons. They learn to work together, they communicate, they struggle, they share their feelings and their ideas, they learn that no one on a stage or a gym floor will be successful alone and that its only as a team that they will achieve the triumph they seek.
So I urge you to find a way to save these spaces for future generations, to make them a continuing resource to the students and the community. This is an opportunity, please don’t waste it.
David Dewar
Class of 1970
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Ron Barillaro: Weighing the need for performing arts centre
The following appeared in the June 04, 2008, edition of the Western News:
The see-saw discussion, rhetoric, dialogue, hyped-press — call it what you will, it seems to ebb and flow at various times and from various individuals or factions. I guess that the real question is: Do we really urgently need a new performing arts centre? The jury is still out on this question and may be for some time.
The quandary over the saving or demolishing of the Pen High facility has brought controversy, discussion, finger-pointing and the press to the fore on several occasions. One should look at other communities our size and see what sorts of facilities they have and how old they are and what types of entertainment have been hosted.
Case in point is Brockville, Ont. (pop. 36,900). Here is a city approximately our size. It has a performing arts centre, although it does not have a convention centre the size of ours. Their arts centre was built in 1895, with many updates and upgrades over the years. There is also a very respectable art gallery in the centre. Because of geographic location, it can and does attract some world-class acts and talent. All one has to do is look where the centre is located. It is within a 200-kilometre radius of major Canadian and U.S. centres in New York state. There are New York state cities as close as 40 kilometres. Our own cities of Hull and Ottawa are within 90 minutes driving time. The city of Cornwall, Ont. is a stone’s throw away.
The population support and patronage support is almost a given. Some of the events that have been presented there are: Harry Connick Jr., Tragically Hip, Glenn Miller Orchestra, Peter Appleyard, Blue Rodeo, Great Big Sea, Roger Whittaker and Randy Bachman, to name but a few. There is a large area jazz festival that is a yearly event here. This centre is the home stage for St. Lawrence College with such productions as CATS, Beauty and the Beast, A Chorus Line and 42nd Street. The classics are represented as well with piano recitals and symphony concerts. Oops, getting carried away. Back to the subject at hand. When and if this proposed performing arts centre is built, who will we attract as patrons within a 200-km radius? Will people from Wenatchee come? Will people from the Kamloops area come? What about people from Trail or Cranbrook? The answer is ... who knows?
The next question that one needs to ask is: other than localized talent (e.g. the symphony and classical presentations, some of which I have enjoyed) who will we attract? We won’t be a Brockville, Ont. for obvious reasons. We won’t attract any acts that Kelowna couldn’t attract for obvious reasons. There isn’t a pressing need for a college interest in pursuing world-class stage productions. It begs the question: Why do we need a new performing arts centre?
Bottom line would be that taxpayers and taxpayers’ children and their children would be paying for something that would attract a few stalwarts to smaller productions. The next question might be the fact that the plans are not finalized, funding is not totally in place and commitments for funding from major government players is talked about but not in place. Who says it will be in place any time soon? If and when this project gets off of the ground, what will building costs be at that time? How much cost overrun will there be?
When all is said and done, how can the city fathers and others justify this project without realizing that costs go up and that we are a small city population-wise. It’s nice to think that the big government arm and the short casino arm will offset the taxpayers’ costs. That’s great in theory but most of us know better what the realities are or will be.
To entertain such a project is pure folly. The larger arms of government have just “ponied up” monies for a building project that is 300 miles over budget, due to construction cost increases and any other lame duck excuses that can be trumped up at the civic level. What makes city fathers think that these levels of government are going to cough up more monies for a project that is still a dream? If $30 million is the cost today, what will it be by the time that this venue comes to fruition in say two, three or even five years?
This also begs the question, Should succeeding councils have to deal with the issues set in motion by this council? Are we, as taxpayers, that gullible that we can accept this fact? And, to hear Mayor Kimberley saying that the taxpayers will not be bearing much of this load, is sheer and utter nonsense. Governments aren’t going to foot the total bill, nor can casino revenues or other grants. How much can we as taxpayers be asked to pay, so as to cover the cost?
Fellow taxpayers, now is the time to make known you sentiment if you don’t want our children and their children to be paying for something that we cannot really afford.
The see-saw discussion, rhetoric, dialogue, hyped-press — call it what you will, it seems to ebb and flow at various times and from various individuals or factions. I guess that the real question is: Do we really urgently need a new performing arts centre? The jury is still out on this question and may be for some time.
The quandary over the saving or demolishing of the Pen High facility has brought controversy, discussion, finger-pointing and the press to the fore on several occasions. One should look at other communities our size and see what sorts of facilities they have and how old they are and what types of entertainment have been hosted.
Case in point is Brockville, Ont. (pop. 36,900). Here is a city approximately our size. It has a performing arts centre, although it does not have a convention centre the size of ours. Their arts centre was built in 1895, with many updates and upgrades over the years. There is also a very respectable art gallery in the centre. Because of geographic location, it can and does attract some world-class acts and talent. All one has to do is look where the centre is located. It is within a 200-kilometre radius of major Canadian and U.S. centres in New York state. There are New York state cities as close as 40 kilometres. Our own cities of Hull and Ottawa are within 90 minutes driving time. The city of Cornwall, Ont. is a stone’s throw away.
The population support and patronage support is almost a given. Some of the events that have been presented there are: Harry Connick Jr., Tragically Hip, Glenn Miller Orchestra, Peter Appleyard, Blue Rodeo, Great Big Sea, Roger Whittaker and Randy Bachman, to name but a few. There is a large area jazz festival that is a yearly event here. This centre is the home stage for St. Lawrence College with such productions as CATS, Beauty and the Beast, A Chorus Line and 42nd Street. The classics are represented as well with piano recitals and symphony concerts. Oops, getting carried away. Back to the subject at hand. When and if this proposed performing arts centre is built, who will we attract as patrons within a 200-km radius? Will people from Wenatchee come? Will people from the Kamloops area come? What about people from Trail or Cranbrook? The answer is ... who knows?
The next question that one needs to ask is: other than localized talent (e.g. the symphony and classical presentations, some of which I have enjoyed) who will we attract? We won’t be a Brockville, Ont. for obvious reasons. We won’t attract any acts that Kelowna couldn’t attract for obvious reasons. There isn’t a pressing need for a college interest in pursuing world-class stage productions. It begs the question: Why do we need a new performing arts centre?
Bottom line would be that taxpayers and taxpayers’ children and their children would be paying for something that would attract a few stalwarts to smaller productions. The next question might be the fact that the plans are not finalized, funding is not totally in place and commitments for funding from major government players is talked about but not in place. Who says it will be in place any time soon? If and when this project gets off of the ground, what will building costs be at that time? How much cost overrun will there be?
When all is said and done, how can the city fathers and others justify this project without realizing that costs go up and that we are a small city population-wise. It’s nice to think that the big government arm and the short casino arm will offset the taxpayers’ costs. That’s great in theory but most of us know better what the realities are or will be.
To entertain such a project is pure folly. The larger arms of government have just “ponied up” monies for a building project that is 300 miles over budget, due to construction cost increases and any other lame duck excuses that can be trumped up at the civic level. What makes city fathers think that these levels of government are going to cough up more monies for a project that is still a dream? If $30 million is the cost today, what will it be by the time that this venue comes to fruition in say two, three or even five years?
This also begs the question, Should succeeding councils have to deal with the issues set in motion by this council? Are we, as taxpayers, that gullible that we can accept this fact? And, to hear Mayor Kimberley saying that the taxpayers will not be bearing much of this load, is sheer and utter nonsense. Governments aren’t going to foot the total bill, nor can casino revenues or other grants. How much can we as taxpayers be asked to pay, so as to cover the cost?
Fellow taxpayers, now is the time to make known you sentiment if you don’t want our children and their children to be paying for something that we cannot really afford.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Michael Brydon: Another white elephant
The following letter appeared in the Jun 4th edition of the Herald:
Proponents of the 700-seat South Okanagan Performing Arts Centre (SOPAC) believe that they have no chance of getting funding for a new facility as long as the 700-seat former Pen-Hi auditorium is standing. What these folks fail to recognize, however, is that they have little chance of getting funding, even if the Pen-Hi auditorium is ground to dust and paved over. Unfortunately, our local politicians have no way of knowing this because, as Mayor Kimberley’s has recently admitted, “this council has not deliberated on the financing of [a new] performing arts centre”. Our leaders are, in effect, flying blind.
Such disregard for the fine economic details is dangerous. Indeed, the last time this council told us to trust it on a major capital project (the events centre), it cost the taxpayers of Penticton an extra $17M. With an eye to avoiding a similar fiasco, I have included a cost comparison of various alternatives for a large performing arts facility. The proposed Penticton arts, recreation, and culture (PARC) complex incorporates the existing, taxpayer-owned buildings made surplus by the construction of a new Pen-Hi (the Shatford building, the north gym, and the auditorium). Admittedly, the former Pen-Hi auditorium will never have a revolving stage (and all the economic benefits and spillovers such a feature entails); however, the former Pen-Hi buildings could provide Penticton with a large performing arts venue, a smaller studio theatre, and a magnificent gymnasium for a fraction of the cost and risk of a new performing arts centre. Given that the city is broke and has many other priorities, including sewage treatment, swimming pool modernization, and increased policing, my guess is that most taxpayers would prefer a cheaper, adequate performing arts centre to another magnificent and costly white elephant.
But our politicians have no intention of finding out what taxpayers think. They already know that at least 2,600 people in the community have expressed dismay with their decision to demolish the Pen-Hi buildings. Given that the margin of victory in the last mayoral election was only 500 votes, the more arithmetically-astute politicians may reckon that they are in a race against the electoral clock. Their only hope of getting their pet project built is to eliminate the only affordable alternative before voters make their voices heard in the fall. Why else would city council and SD67 be so loathe to give voters a real choice in a referendum?
Proponents of the 700-seat South Okanagan Performing Arts Centre (SOPAC) believe that they have no chance of getting funding for a new facility as long as the 700-seat former Pen-Hi auditorium is standing. What these folks fail to recognize, however, is that they have little chance of getting funding, even if the Pen-Hi auditorium is ground to dust and paved over. Unfortunately, our local politicians have no way of knowing this because, as Mayor Kimberley’s has recently admitted, “this council has not deliberated on the financing of [a new] performing arts centre”. Our leaders are, in effect, flying blind.
Such disregard for the fine economic details is dangerous. Indeed, the last time this council told us to trust it on a major capital project (the events centre), it cost the taxpayers of Penticton an extra $17M. With an eye to avoiding a similar fiasco, I have included a cost comparison of various alternatives for a large performing arts facility. The proposed Penticton arts, recreation, and culture (PARC) complex incorporates the existing, taxpayer-owned buildings made surplus by the construction of a new Pen-Hi (the Shatford building, the north gym, and the auditorium). Admittedly, the former Pen-Hi auditorium will never have a revolving stage (and all the economic benefits and spillovers such a feature entails); however, the former Pen-Hi buildings could provide Penticton with a large performing arts venue, a smaller studio theatre, and a magnificent gymnasium for a fraction of the cost and risk of a new performing arts centre. Given that the city is broke and has many other priorities, including sewage treatment, swimming pool modernization, and increased policing, my guess is that most taxpayers would prefer a cheaper, adequate performing arts centre to another magnificent and costly white elephant.
But our politicians have no intention of finding out what taxpayers think. They already know that at least 2,600 people in the community have expressed dismay with their decision to demolish the Pen-Hi buildings. Given that the margin of victory in the last mayoral election was only 500 votes, the more arithmetically-astute politicians may reckon that they are in a race against the electoral clock. Their only hope of getting their pet project built is to eliminate the only affordable alternative before voters make their voices heard in the fall. Why else would city council and SD67 be so loathe to give voters a real choice in a referendum?
Friday, March 28, 2008
Denis O'Gorman: Strategy needed on auditorium
The following letter appeared in the March 28, 2008, edition of the Western News. Mr. O'Gorman is a community planner and a former Assistant Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks
In his letter published March 14, Gerry Karr raised the spectre of a public policy hijacking by a special interest group. His target was the group advocating retention of the Pen High auditorium. However, the advocates for a whole new centre, the Penticton and District Performing Arts Facilities Society, are already beneficiaries of a $2.5 million land grant plus significant funding for both feasibility and business plan studies from the city, suggesting they have made substantial inroads on setting public policy in Penticton.
Rhetoric about hijacking is unhelpful at a time when détente, analysis and dialogue would seem more valuable. As starting points of agreement, most parties including the above key groups would agree that Penticton’s downtown needs enhancement; an arts precinct and corridor could be a valued contribution to downtown vitality; and a new arts facility could help meet cultural aspirations, enhance livability and potentially also tourism.
Realizing these high objectives, however, requires a fuller downtown design strategy, a clearer picture of realistic tourism goals in a very competitive market and focused analysis of realistic cultural expectations. These have yet to surface.
Regarding a city-funded “needs assessment,” this, to my knowledge, has yet to be made available to inform the thinking of Penticton’s taxpayers. Similarly, a study which allegedly confirms financial feasibility has yet to be made generally available. There is considerable reason for skepticism given the extensive commitments to the events centre, rising property tax levels, and denial of an appropriate level of financial support to existing cultural facilities such as the Art Gallery of the South Okanagan.
Moreover, there appears to be the assumption by the arts facility society of considerable federal and provincial contributions without the sources for such funds being identified. Finally, the issue of potential internal competition with the events centre should be openly examined as part of a market analysis.
A starting point for the city would be to post the completed studies (on both cultural needs and financial feasibility) on the city’s website. This should be quickly followed by a preliminary design study to establish general physical feasibility of an Ellis Street site.
Similarly the deliverables from the $50,000 allocated to the performing arts facility society should be specified. This is a reasonable expectation given that most organizations develop their business plans using internal resources and available templates.
In the meantime, the reality of the Pen High auditorium and north gym, as “birds in the hand” should not be dismissed. Of course, they don’t represent “auditorium beautiful” and supporters acknowledge several shortcomings such as inadequate foyer and backstage space. However, the present auditorium and gym are standing and apparently upgradable. Moreover, upgrading costs are more likely feasible in terms of overall taxpayer impact. Plus an existing auditorium (and gym) can meet diverse community needs while carefully considered financial and development plans for a more permanent venue are developed.
A considered “side-by-side” analysis of the upgrade and new facility options including capital and operating costs would be especially helpful. It should identify funding sources and the respective implications for the city’s finances given clear funding assumptions. This information might even help guide a voter referendum on the question.
Certainly choice should not be pre-empted by a rush to demolish the Pen High auditorium and gym as is apparently being pursued by the school board. Sure, it’s Plan B from their perspective but overall public benefits of having an interim (10 years perhaps) auditorium and accessible gym may well warrant a sober second look.
And should provincial funding formulas be the driving concern of the school board, couldn’t they and any associated policies be revisited? With the help of our MLA, perhaps a staged building retention and transition strategy to best represent the overall civic interest might be forged. Constructive collaboration, as was done for ball field upgrades, would seem to present Penticton taxpayers their best option, at least while a consensus-based strategy on cultural needs and facilities is developed with both the city and school board actively engaged.
In his letter published March 14, Gerry Karr raised the spectre of a public policy hijacking by a special interest group. His target was the group advocating retention of the Pen High auditorium. However, the advocates for a whole new centre, the Penticton and District Performing Arts Facilities Society, are already beneficiaries of a $2.5 million land grant plus significant funding for both feasibility and business plan studies from the city, suggesting they have made substantial inroads on setting public policy in Penticton.
Rhetoric about hijacking is unhelpful at a time when détente, analysis and dialogue would seem more valuable. As starting points of agreement, most parties including the above key groups would agree that Penticton’s downtown needs enhancement; an arts precinct and corridor could be a valued contribution to downtown vitality; and a new arts facility could help meet cultural aspirations, enhance livability and potentially also tourism.
Realizing these high objectives, however, requires a fuller downtown design strategy, a clearer picture of realistic tourism goals in a very competitive market and focused analysis of realistic cultural expectations. These have yet to surface.
Regarding a city-funded “needs assessment,” this, to my knowledge, has yet to be made available to inform the thinking of Penticton’s taxpayers. Similarly, a study which allegedly confirms financial feasibility has yet to be made generally available. There is considerable reason for skepticism given the extensive commitments to the events centre, rising property tax levels, and denial of an appropriate level of financial support to existing cultural facilities such as the Art Gallery of the South Okanagan.
Moreover, there appears to be the assumption by the arts facility society of considerable federal and provincial contributions without the sources for such funds being identified. Finally, the issue of potential internal competition with the events centre should be openly examined as part of a market analysis.
A starting point for the city would be to post the completed studies (on both cultural needs and financial feasibility) on the city’s website. This should be quickly followed by a preliminary design study to establish general physical feasibility of an Ellis Street site.
Similarly the deliverables from the $50,000 allocated to the performing arts facility society should be specified. This is a reasonable expectation given that most organizations develop their business plans using internal resources and available templates.
In the meantime, the reality of the Pen High auditorium and north gym, as “birds in the hand” should not be dismissed. Of course, they don’t represent “auditorium beautiful” and supporters acknowledge several shortcomings such as inadequate foyer and backstage space. However, the present auditorium and gym are standing and apparently upgradable. Moreover, upgrading costs are more likely feasible in terms of overall taxpayer impact. Plus an existing auditorium (and gym) can meet diverse community needs while carefully considered financial and development plans for a more permanent venue are developed.
A considered “side-by-side” analysis of the upgrade and new facility options including capital and operating costs would be especially helpful. It should identify funding sources and the respective implications for the city’s finances given clear funding assumptions. This information might even help guide a voter referendum on the question.
Certainly choice should not be pre-empted by a rush to demolish the Pen High auditorium and gym as is apparently being pursued by the school board. Sure, it’s Plan B from their perspective but overall public benefits of having an interim (10 years perhaps) auditorium and accessible gym may well warrant a sober second look.
And should provincial funding formulas be the driving concern of the school board, couldn’t they and any associated policies be revisited? With the help of our MLA, perhaps a staged building retention and transition strategy to best represent the overall civic interest might be forged. Constructive collaboration, as was done for ball field upgrades, would seem to present Penticton taxpayers their best option, at least while a consensus-based strategy on cultural needs and facilities is developed with both the city and school board actively engaged.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Jim Hewitt: Community’s interest should be priority
The following appeared in the March 26, 2008, edition of the Western News. Mr. Hewitt was the Member of the Legislative Assembly for the Okanagan-Boundary region from 1975 to 1986.
This letter is in response to Gerry Karr’s letter entitled, “Public policy being hijacked” in the March 14 Penticton Western News.
Gerry is concerned about the special interest group known as the Penticton League of Sensible Electors and feels they are trying to undermine Gerry’s “special interest group” known as the Penticton and District Performing Arts Facilities Society. Regardless of what they are called, there are two groups of thought in this city.
This writer has no quarrel with either side, however, as a resident/taxpayer I am concerned about the community as a whole. I always have been of the view that elected officials, whether they are the city council or the school board, have a dual role to fulfill. Both roles must be considered. The first is their fiduciary role or the management of taxpayers’ dollars. The second role is that of good governance or properly conducting the affairs of, and service to, the community.
To demolish the Pen High auditorium this year without a replacement facility is not good governance. It would mean this community will be without an auditorium or performing arts centre for the next five or more years. It seems to me we can have a goal of a new performing arts centre with proper planning and financing. The city has already bought the property on Ellis Street and has contributed funds to the society so the concept has been endorsed and it is a good one — but the decision to tear down the auditorium at this time is not.
I know there are costs involved in maintaining the auditorium. The council and school board can claim good management of taxpayers’ dollars (their fiduciary role). However, their role in providing service and facilities to the community (their governance role) has not been met.
To create a parking lot and deny Pen High students and teachers an auditorium for band, theatre, assembly etc and the public an auditorium for cultural events, public meetings etc. is not good governance.
I believe the “special interest group” that Gerry attacks looks forward to the opening of a performing arts centre as much as Gerry… but in good time and with proper planning. While the school board and council have had professional input, it is with regard to the facility not with the proper governance of a community. Let’s face it — the “professionals” are only responding to the request of the council and/or school board.
I would hope the council and school board challenge their staff and professional advisers to work to accommodate their public, rather than attack “special interest groups” who have nothing to gain personally but are concerned about their community.
The city council and school board should delay the demolition timetable and not just consider the dollars involved but also consider the building’s importance to the community while the planning and construction of the performing arts centre takes place.
This letter is in response to Gerry Karr’s letter entitled, “Public policy being hijacked” in the March 14 Penticton Western News.
Gerry is concerned about the special interest group known as the Penticton League of Sensible Electors and feels they are trying to undermine Gerry’s “special interest group” known as the Penticton and District Performing Arts Facilities Society. Regardless of what they are called, there are two groups of thought in this city.
This writer has no quarrel with either side, however, as a resident/taxpayer I am concerned about the community as a whole. I always have been of the view that elected officials, whether they are the city council or the school board, have a dual role to fulfill. Both roles must be considered. The first is their fiduciary role or the management of taxpayers’ dollars. The second role is that of good governance or properly conducting the affairs of, and service to, the community.
To demolish the Pen High auditorium this year without a replacement facility is not good governance. It would mean this community will be without an auditorium or performing arts centre for the next five or more years. It seems to me we can have a goal of a new performing arts centre with proper planning and financing. The city has already bought the property on Ellis Street and has contributed funds to the society so the concept has been endorsed and it is a good one — but the decision to tear down the auditorium at this time is not.
I know there are costs involved in maintaining the auditorium. The council and school board can claim good management of taxpayers’ dollars (their fiduciary role). However, their role in providing service and facilities to the community (their governance role) has not been met.
To create a parking lot and deny Pen High students and teachers an auditorium for band, theatre, assembly etc and the public an auditorium for cultural events, public meetings etc. is not good governance.
I believe the “special interest group” that Gerry attacks looks forward to the opening of a performing arts centre as much as Gerry… but in good time and with proper planning. While the school board and council have had professional input, it is with regard to the facility not with the proper governance of a community. Let’s face it — the “professionals” are only responding to the request of the council and/or school board.
I would hope the council and school board challenge their staff and professional advisers to work to accommodate their public, rather than attack “special interest groups” who have nothing to gain personally but are concerned about their community.
The city council and school board should delay the demolition timetable and not just consider the dollars involved but also consider the building’s importance to the community while the planning and construction of the performing arts centre takes place.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Jack Ambler: Buildings in need of community support
The following appeared in the 02 Mar 08 edition of the Penticton Western News:
The debate concerning the Pen High auditorium and gym has been going on for some time now with numerous letters to the editor that speak of the continued usefulness of both buildings. Many of these letters have been written by well-respected members of our community and the views expressed are undoubtedly well thought out and mostly factual.
Dave Shunter’s recent letter was informative, with very compelling reasons to upgrade and keep the buildings for future use. Previously, many performers have written letters indicating that the auditorium is still an excellent venue in which to perform.
The Penticton Western News story of Feb. 22, entitled “Officials state case for school buildings demolition” was anything but informative and it really provided very little insight as to why the buildings must be demolished. It was the typical spin that politicians use to cloud an issue when simple common sense is being ignored.
School board chair Larry Little is quoted as saying “Given the proper information they’ll (I assume he means the taxpayers) be able to make an informed decision.” OK Mr. Little, give us the information. Tell us what the cost benefits will be to destroy two taxpayer-funded buildings that have been and still are a valuable asset to the community.
Don’t simply tell us that there are other facilities to take the place of these buildings, tell us in terms of dollars and cents how the taxpayer will benefit from hauling these buildings away to the landfill. Tell us why spending $30 million to construct a replacement theatre is more cost effective than spending $2 million to upgrade existing buildings which will provide a multipurpose facility.
Tell us why, not too many years ago, a very large sum of taxpayers’ money was spent to upgrade the gym while at the same time the school board was pursuing ministry approval for the construction of a new school and ultimately the destruction of a newly upgraded building. The half million or so of taxpayers’ dollars that you spent for the gym renovations is now going to be buried in the landfill.
“We haven’t done the greatest job, the city and the school board, in renting out our facilities.” How true. Both Mr. Kimberley and Mr. Little should tell the taxpayer why they are “not doing the greatest job” in all aspects of their civic duties. Were they not elected because they presented the best option at the time to manage the affairs of the city and the school board?
Maybe if they were doing their best to rent city and school board properties, the apparent problem of finding $200,000 per year for maintenance of the auditorium and gym would not be an issue. By my calculation, the $200,000 annual maintenance costs work out to approximately $5.72 per person in Penticton and much less if the cost were spread out throughout the regional district. This is not a large sum of money to pay each year for the privilege of keeping and using the auditorium and gym.
The local soccer club was very confident, and the city agreed, that they can cover the operating costs of their new facility and repay a rather large loan without the taxpayers’ help. Would proper management of the auditorium and gym not have the same result?
“… We’re looking at what’s in the best interests of our kids, and not so much the community …” Kids and schools are part of the community. The community includes everyone and everything within it and it is simply not reasonable to exclude the school board from decisions which have an impact on the entire community.
The school board says it is the city’s responsibility now and the city says it is the school board’s decision. It is time that Mr. Kimberley and Mr. Little quit passing the buck and work together on this project to make the community proud.
“We’re not eliminating anything, that’s another misconception.” I guess we’ll all see what kind of a misconception this is when we drive down Eckhardt Avenue this fall and see that two large buildings have been eliminated in favour of a parking lot.
Jack Ambler
Penticton
The debate concerning the Pen High auditorium and gym has been going on for some time now with numerous letters to the editor that speak of the continued usefulness of both buildings. Many of these letters have been written by well-respected members of our community and the views expressed are undoubtedly well thought out and mostly factual.
Dave Shunter’s recent letter was informative, with very compelling reasons to upgrade and keep the buildings for future use. Previously, many performers have written letters indicating that the auditorium is still an excellent venue in which to perform.
The Penticton Western News story of Feb. 22, entitled “Officials state case for school buildings demolition” was anything but informative and it really provided very little insight as to why the buildings must be demolished. It was the typical spin that politicians use to cloud an issue when simple common sense is being ignored.
School board chair Larry Little is quoted as saying “Given the proper information they’ll (I assume he means the taxpayers) be able to make an informed decision.” OK Mr. Little, give us the information. Tell us what the cost benefits will be to destroy two taxpayer-funded buildings that have been and still are a valuable asset to the community.
Don’t simply tell us that there are other facilities to take the place of these buildings, tell us in terms of dollars and cents how the taxpayer will benefit from hauling these buildings away to the landfill. Tell us why spending $30 million to construct a replacement theatre is more cost effective than spending $2 million to upgrade existing buildings which will provide a multipurpose facility.
Tell us why, not too many years ago, a very large sum of taxpayers’ money was spent to upgrade the gym while at the same time the school board was pursuing ministry approval for the construction of a new school and ultimately the destruction of a newly upgraded building. The half million or so of taxpayers’ dollars that you spent for the gym renovations is now going to be buried in the landfill.
“We haven’t done the greatest job, the city and the school board, in renting out our facilities.” How true. Both Mr. Kimberley and Mr. Little should tell the taxpayer why they are “not doing the greatest job” in all aspects of their civic duties. Were they not elected because they presented the best option at the time to manage the affairs of the city and the school board?
Maybe if they were doing their best to rent city and school board properties, the apparent problem of finding $200,000 per year for maintenance of the auditorium and gym would not be an issue. By my calculation, the $200,000 annual maintenance costs work out to approximately $5.72 per person in Penticton and much less if the cost were spread out throughout the regional district. This is not a large sum of money to pay each year for the privilege of keeping and using the auditorium and gym.
The local soccer club was very confident, and the city agreed, that they can cover the operating costs of their new facility and repay a rather large loan without the taxpayers’ help. Would proper management of the auditorium and gym not have the same result?
“… We’re looking at what’s in the best interests of our kids, and not so much the community …” Kids and schools are part of the community. The community includes everyone and everything within it and it is simply not reasonable to exclude the school board from decisions which have an impact on the entire community.
The school board says it is the city’s responsibility now and the city says it is the school board’s decision. It is time that Mr. Kimberley and Mr. Little quit passing the buck and work together on this project to make the community proud.
“We’re not eliminating anything, that’s another misconception.” I guess we’ll all see what kind of a misconception this is when we drive down Eckhardt Avenue this fall and see that two large buildings have been eliminated in favour of a parking lot.
Jack Ambler
Penticton
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Michael Brydon: Penticton taxpayers are being taken for a ride
I have not been updating the blog regularly. Half the problem is that the Western News only recently (as far as I can tell) restarted publishing letters on its website. The other half of the problem is that I have been very busy with other things.
Below is my latest submission to The Herald. (slightly updated 03 Mar 08)
It looks like Penticton taxpayers are being taken for another long and expensive ride. The committee for the construction of the South Okanagan Performing Arts Centre (SOPAC) has recently sketched a grand vision for a 750-seat auditorium on the old Nanaimo Hall site. Although some cost estimates for the facility are in the $30M-$40M range, the SOPAC committee has convinced city leaders that this money will fall from the sky and that there will be no impact on local taxpayers. They point to the Vernon and District Performing Arts Centre and argue that we, too, deserve a state-of-the-art facility. However, the SOPAC committee has somehow neglected to mention that the taxpayers of Greater Vernon fork out $1.18M each year to subsidize their theatre. The story is similar in other communities across Canada. Burlington, Ontario, for example, has received only $2.5M in federal support for its proposed $36M 718-seat performing arts centre. Local taxpayers in Burlington are being told that they are on the hook for between $14M-$18M.
The disconnect between what is being promised in Penticton and reality in other communities means that one of two things is true: Either the good people of Vernon and Burlington lack the moxie and “horsepower” to raise external money or the SOPAC folks in Penticton have no real idea of what they are talking about. Given that these are the same people who promised City Council nine months ago that the SOPAC would be fully funded and up and running in 24 months, it is pretty easy to envision this all going very badly for the average Penticton taxpayer. Indeed, here is how I see it unfolding: a gullible city council will continue to cling to the belief that a new performing arts facility can be built with external funds even though the SOPAC group has produced no business plan, secured no external funding, and has refused to even estimate the facility’s final cost. Untroubled by their complete lack of reliable information and unwilling to do their own due diligence, the city will make important decisions based on the belief that the SOPAC will somehow materialize. As the first order of business, they will ensure that the former Pen-Hi auditorium is reduced to rubble in order to eliminate all competition for the new theatre (the former Pen-Hi gym will be mere collateral damage in all this). Then, once the irreversible decisions have been made, the city will discover that a new performing arts facility costs much more than anticipated and that senior levels of government will contribute much less than anticipated. Pointing to sunk costs and the city’s shameful lack of a large venue for the performing arts, our leaders will argue that the only way to go is forward. Property taxes will be increased, water and electricity fees may suddenly spike and—stop me if you have heard this one before—a mind-numbing budgetary shell game involving reserve accounts and unused borrowing headroom will be unleashed on taxpayers in order to convince them that the millions of dollars of city money required to complete the SOPAC is a figment of their imaginations.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the taxpayers of Penticton are currently in the mood for another large, expensive, non-essential capital project. Clearly, the Mayor and his close cadre of advisors think they have a smashingly good plan. But who is representing the interests of everyone else? What about the many young kids in this town who do not play varsity sports and therefore have no after-hours access to their school gyms? Apparently, city leaders look at the headlines about childhood inactivity, crystal meth, and other youth problems and conclude that we have plenty of gym space. I guess they figure more talk and some bumper stickers will solve these problems. And what about the school board? Do they really believe that unobstructed sightlines to the new Pen-Hi and a particular configuration of student parking are more important than providing kids with venues for cultural and recreational activities? Or does the school board’s commitment to youth end at 3:30 PM, Monday to Friday?
I certainly do not pretend to speak for the many diverse citizens who have come together to voice dismay at the city and school board’s unwillingness to save the Pen-Hi buildings. But I do have a couple of suggestions for our city leaders. First let’s do something we have not done to this point and hold the SOPAC committee accountable for its promises. Given that the city’s plan hinges on the SOPAC’s feasibility, we need to see and discuss a real business plan with real numbers. If they can do no better than “we are talking to potential sources of funding” or “arts is the key to the new urban economy”, or “Jimmy Pattison might donate”, I suggest we acknowledge that a fully-funded new theatre is a fantasy and adopt something like the Vernon or Burlington scenarios as our mostly likely base case. Second, let’s hold a referendum on this base case to see whether Penticton taxpayers are willing to contribute a couple of million every year to subsidize a state-of-the-art performing arts centre. Naturally, the referendum should be held before our only realistic alternative to the SOPAC is paved over. Third, if our leaders are not prepared to subject their political instincts to democratic validation, or if the result of the referendum is a resounding “no”, the city should immediately cut its losses. It should sell the land it donated for the SOPAC and use the proceeds of the sale to upgrade the Pen-Hi auditorium, fund youth programs in the Pen-Hi gymnasium, expand seniors-oriented programs such as Healthy Heart in the Community Centre gymnasium, and pay off some of the debt incurred by the last project that was supposed to have no impact on local taxpayers. In other words, the city should get its head out of the clouds, live within its means, and allocate scarce resources to where they can do the most good for the whole community.
Below is my latest submission to The Herald. (slightly updated 03 Mar 08)
It looks like Penticton taxpayers are being taken for another long and expensive ride. The committee for the construction of the South Okanagan Performing Arts Centre (SOPAC) has recently sketched a grand vision for a 750-seat auditorium on the old Nanaimo Hall site. Although some cost estimates for the facility are in the $30M-$40M range, the SOPAC committee has convinced city leaders that this money will fall from the sky and that there will be no impact on local taxpayers. They point to the Vernon and District Performing Arts Centre and argue that we, too, deserve a state-of-the-art facility. However, the SOPAC committee has somehow neglected to mention that the taxpayers of Greater Vernon fork out $1.18M each year to subsidize their theatre. The story is similar in other communities across Canada. Burlington, Ontario, for example, has received only $2.5M in federal support for its proposed $36M 718-seat performing arts centre. Local taxpayers in Burlington are being told that they are on the hook for between $14M-$18M.
The disconnect between what is being promised in Penticton and reality in other communities means that one of two things is true: Either the good people of Vernon and Burlington lack the moxie and “horsepower” to raise external money or the SOPAC folks in Penticton have no real idea of what they are talking about. Given that these are the same people who promised City Council nine months ago that the SOPAC would be fully funded and up and running in 24 months, it is pretty easy to envision this all going very badly for the average Penticton taxpayer. Indeed, here is how I see it unfolding: a gullible city council will continue to cling to the belief that a new performing arts facility can be built with external funds even though the SOPAC group has produced no business plan, secured no external funding, and has refused to even estimate the facility’s final cost. Untroubled by their complete lack of reliable information and unwilling to do their own due diligence, the city will make important decisions based on the belief that the SOPAC will somehow materialize. As the first order of business, they will ensure that the former Pen-Hi auditorium is reduced to rubble in order to eliminate all competition for the new theatre (the former Pen-Hi gym will be mere collateral damage in all this). Then, once the irreversible decisions have been made, the city will discover that a new performing arts facility costs much more than anticipated and that senior levels of government will contribute much less than anticipated. Pointing to sunk costs and the city’s shameful lack of a large venue for the performing arts, our leaders will argue that the only way to go is forward. Property taxes will be increased, water and electricity fees may suddenly spike and—stop me if you have heard this one before—a mind-numbing budgetary shell game involving reserve accounts and unused borrowing headroom will be unleashed on taxpayers in order to convince them that the millions of dollars of city money required to complete the SOPAC is a figment of their imaginations.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the taxpayers of Penticton are currently in the mood for another large, expensive, non-essential capital project. Clearly, the Mayor and his close cadre of advisors think they have a smashingly good plan. But who is representing the interests of everyone else? What about the many young kids in this town who do not play varsity sports and therefore have no after-hours access to their school gyms? Apparently, city leaders look at the headlines about childhood inactivity, crystal meth, and other youth problems and conclude that we have plenty of gym space. I guess they figure more talk and some bumper stickers will solve these problems. And what about the school board? Do they really believe that unobstructed sightlines to the new Pen-Hi and a particular configuration of student parking are more important than providing kids with venues for cultural and recreational activities? Or does the school board’s commitment to youth end at 3:30 PM, Monday to Friday?
I certainly do not pretend to speak for the many diverse citizens who have come together to voice dismay at the city and school board’s unwillingness to save the Pen-Hi buildings. But I do have a couple of suggestions for our city leaders. First let’s do something we have not done to this point and hold the SOPAC committee accountable for its promises. Given that the city’s plan hinges on the SOPAC’s feasibility, we need to see and discuss a real business plan with real numbers. If they can do no better than “we are talking to potential sources of funding” or “arts is the key to the new urban economy”, or “Jimmy Pattison might donate”, I suggest we acknowledge that a fully-funded new theatre is a fantasy and adopt something like the Vernon or Burlington scenarios as our mostly likely base case. Second, let’s hold a referendum on this base case to see whether Penticton taxpayers are willing to contribute a couple of million every year to subsidize a state-of-the-art performing arts centre. Naturally, the referendum should be held before our only realistic alternative to the SOPAC is paved over. Third, if our leaders are not prepared to subject their political instincts to democratic validation, or if the result of the referendum is a resounding “no”, the city should immediately cut its losses. It should sell the land it donated for the SOPAC and use the proceeds of the sale to upgrade the Pen-Hi auditorium, fund youth programs in the Pen-Hi gymnasium, expand seniors-oriented programs such as Healthy Heart in the Community Centre gymnasium, and pay off some of the debt incurred by the last project that was supposed to have no impact on local taxpayers. In other words, the city should get its head out of the clouds, live within its means, and allocate scarce resources to where they can do the most good for the whole community.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Dodi Morrison: Arts accommodation for the most people
The following letter appeared in The Herald and the August 12th edition of the Western News:
The visit of the Tibetan Monks (in exile) was amazingly meaningful to many, many people.
I am reliably told that on the Tuesday of the memorable week 1,200 people went through the art gallery — and those were just the ones who signed the guest book. I’m sure there were many more who did not.
The whole undertaking was a tremendous success — and all due to our new, dauntless, inspired curator Paul Crawford. I’m (also reliably) told that he met with much opposition — he was assured that “it was too religious” and that “nobody would come.”
So he was thrilled to have that all proved untrue. As for the Sunday night concert, the Cleland was sold out — and if there had been tickets a the door — Penticton people being known for last minute decisions — well, they could have filled Pen High auditorium, I’m sure.
I have before me the pinned-up quotation I found for sale at the Monks’ table — “Loving kindness is my religion” — signed by The Dalai Lama.
I was so moved by it all — the talks at meditation, and at other times; the unforgettable sight of the monks creating that mandala, the crowd at the closing ceremony, the wonderful cross-section of Penticton’s population — following the monks until the last of the sand was deposited in the waters of the Japanese Garden — that I felt how sad it was that we were arguing about how we should approach our need for space for concerts — both for school children and adults.
I have heard all the arguments from the council and the school board. But I know that the vast number of my fellow Pentictonites really want to save those two buildings. And I know we will eventually need both. And I know that if little Oliver can decide it wants to save a much more difficult-to-save building, it’s a matter of “Where there’s a will there’s a way.”
I looked at that wonderful crowd around the art gallery and thought of how hard it might be to fill a new building with those able to afford a world-class tenor. (Neither Vernon nor Kelowna can make it pay.)
I know if either government gives tax-money to create the new facility rather than to help create affordable housing, we will be hard pressed to find anyone to clean motel rooms — or to provide other services.
And I wonder — are we really trying to approach all this with “Loving-Kindness”? Are we truly looking for the way to provide arts accommodation for the most people — young and old?
It breaks my heart to see Penticton so divided. Is there truly a “will” to find the right “way?”
The visit of the Tibetan Monks (in exile) was amazingly meaningful to many, many people.
I am reliably told that on the Tuesday of the memorable week 1,200 people went through the art gallery — and those were just the ones who signed the guest book. I’m sure there were many more who did not.
The whole undertaking was a tremendous success — and all due to our new, dauntless, inspired curator Paul Crawford. I’m (also reliably) told that he met with much opposition — he was assured that “it was too religious” and that “nobody would come.”
So he was thrilled to have that all proved untrue. As for the Sunday night concert, the Cleland was sold out — and if there had been tickets a the door — Penticton people being known for last minute decisions — well, they could have filled Pen High auditorium, I’m sure.
I have before me the pinned-up quotation I found for sale at the Monks’ table — “Loving kindness is my religion” — signed by The Dalai Lama.
I was so moved by it all — the talks at meditation, and at other times; the unforgettable sight of the monks creating that mandala, the crowd at the closing ceremony, the wonderful cross-section of Penticton’s population — following the monks until the last of the sand was deposited in the waters of the Japanese Garden — that I felt how sad it was that we were arguing about how we should approach our need for space for concerts — both for school children and adults.
I have heard all the arguments from the council and the school board. But I know that the vast number of my fellow Pentictonites really want to save those two buildings. And I know we will eventually need both. And I know that if little Oliver can decide it wants to save a much more difficult-to-save building, it’s a matter of “Where there’s a will there’s a way.”
I looked at that wonderful crowd around the art gallery and thought of how hard it might be to fill a new building with those able to afford a world-class tenor. (Neither Vernon nor Kelowna can make it pay.)
I know if either government gives tax-money to create the new facility rather than to help create affordable housing, we will be hard pressed to find anyone to clean motel rooms — or to provide other services.
And I wonder — are we really trying to approach all this with “Loving-Kindness”? Are we truly looking for the way to provide arts accommodation for the most people — young and old?
It breaks my heart to see Penticton so divided. Is there truly a “will” to find the right “way?”
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Betty and Carl Harris: Keep it simple
The following appeared in the August 1st, 2007, edition of the Western News:
There are enough opinions being presented on the Pen High auditorium/gym situation that we find it a little confusing.
Firstly, our objective was to keep what we have until replacements were in place. This is not a confusing scenario but rather a simple one. What has happened over the last few months is the fact people have taken sides and the whole thing has become confused.
Presently the city is making available a piece of land to be used for the new performing arts centre. This is a good and simple start. Next comes the funding which is very confusing. Various levels of government have made several statements that are basically not very clear. Financing is therefore in the early stages. The two- to three-year time frame for construction seems unrealistic when compared to other projects.
What happens if funding is delayed, or there is soil contamination, or water seepage from the creek? What happens if steel and concrete prices reach the sky? Any of these could delay the opening. The problem will be that when you find these out, the buildings will already be demolished.
With regards the gymnasium, we have already lost the south gym and Nanaimo Hall. Most displaced groups are not yet settled in. Also the pressure of wellness centres is increasing for all ages. What an error it would be if you have to build a new replacement gym in the near future.
Don’t forget the auditorium and gym are paid for.
We think the time has come for those involved to do some head scratching and pencil sharpening to find a way to delay the demolishing of these buildings until the possibility of a serious future scenario is turned into a simple one.
There are enough opinions being presented on the Pen High auditorium/gym situation that we find it a little confusing.
Firstly, our objective was to keep what we have until replacements were in place. This is not a confusing scenario but rather a simple one. What has happened over the last few months is the fact people have taken sides and the whole thing has become confused.
Presently the city is making available a piece of land to be used for the new performing arts centre. This is a good and simple start. Next comes the funding which is very confusing. Various levels of government have made several statements that are basically not very clear. Financing is therefore in the early stages. The two- to three-year time frame for construction seems unrealistic when compared to other projects.
What happens if funding is delayed, or there is soil contamination, or water seepage from the creek? What happens if steel and concrete prices reach the sky? Any of these could delay the opening. The problem will be that when you find these out, the buildings will already be demolished.
With regards the gymnasium, we have already lost the south gym and Nanaimo Hall. Most displaced groups are not yet settled in. Also the pressure of wellness centres is increasing for all ages. What an error it would be if you have to build a new replacement gym in the near future.
Don’t forget the auditorium and gym are paid for.
We think the time has come for those involved to do some head scratching and pencil sharpening to find a way to delay the demolishing of these buildings until the possibility of a serious future scenario is turned into a simple one.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Jeanne Lamb: Columnist put to the test
The following response to Allan Markin's recent column appeared in the July 27th, 207, edition of the Western News:
Columnist Allan Markin’s opinion piece in the July 20 Western News I feel should earn him the sentence of writing out the well known Rotary Four Way Test at least 30 million times.
The test states: In all the things we think, say or do
On completion, I suggest Mr. Markin should apply for a four-year term as public relations Officer for the Argentine U20 Soccer Team or perhaps as blog site manager for Conrad Black. Hubris would be an asset in either position.
Columnist Allan Markin’s opinion piece in the July 20 Western News I feel should earn him the sentence of writing out the well known Rotary Four Way Test at least 30 million times.
The test states: In all the things we think, say or do
- Is it the truth?
- Is it fair to all concerned?
- Will it build good will and better friendship?
- Will it be beneficial to all concerned?
On completion, I suggest Mr. Markin should apply for a four-year term as public relations Officer for the Argentine U20 Soccer Team or perhaps as blog site manager for Conrad Black. Hubris would be an asset in either position.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Jake Kimberley: Mayor clarifies city’s position on major projects
The following letter appeared in both The Herald and the Western News:
Once again I feel compelled to write a letter to clarify the process of the three major projects the city has had to deal with since I took office.
I was informed when I took office that the city was made aware in 2004 by the school district that the auditorium and gymnasium were not included in the overall site plan for the new high school and would be torn down. After I took office I was contacted by the chairperson of the school board and told the board needed a firm answer from the city on what their interest would be with the auditorium. This led to a meeting between the board, their staff, Barry Reid and myself in December 2006. We were reminded that the gymnasium was not part of the discussion and that the board needed an answer on the auditorium by June 1.
Once again I feel compelled to write a letter to clarify the process of the three major projects the city has had to deal with since I took office.
Transparency is good.[... stuff about the South Okanagan Events Centre]
I was informed when I took office that the city was made aware in 2004 by the school district that the auditorium and gymnasium were not included in the overall site plan for the new high school and would be torn down. After I took office I was contacted by the chairperson of the school board and told the board needed a firm answer from the city on what their interest would be with the auditorium. This led to a meeting between the board, their staff, Barry Reid and myself in December 2006. We were reminded that the gymnasium was not part of the discussion and that the board needed an answer on the auditorium by June 1.
We understand that saving the buildings was not in the school board's original plan. But so what? We think the old plan is a bad one and are asking for a new plan—that is the whole point. The school board's primary mandate is to do what is best for the school (which apparently means routing school buses through a busy parking lot). However, school board members serve at the pleasure of taxpayers, and taxpayers take a broader view of their interests. Unfortunately, we have two elected bodies in deadlock—each pointing to the other as if the other were some type of omnipotent authority. School board members are not elected to make their own decisions; instead, they are there to represent the interests of local taxpayers. According to the city's own survey, 60% of Penticton residents think saving the two buildings is a good idea. You would think that democratically-elected officials would see survey result as relevant.From there a complete review was undertaken by city staff and an outside consultant to determine the actual costs to bring both structures up to code and the cost of managing them and maintaining them until a new performing arts facility would be constructed. The cost estimates were $1.7 million for renovations plus $200,000 per year for management and maintenance.
As noted previously, according to the memo from Barry Reid, the estimates were $1.2M and $1.5M. I am not sure where $1.7M came from. Also, the $167K - $227K operating cost estimate includes (as Mr. Reid's memo makes clear) the salary for a full-time arts coordinator for the city (a position that the city will fill either way) and does not include any rental revenue the facilities might generate. On the other hand, the operating cost estimate does not include any fees payable to the school district for the use of the land occupied by the two buildings. I am not sure this is an issue. The school board seems to be insisting on "fair market value" for the land, but it is taxpayers' money either way. Any payment between the city and the school district would be interesting from a bookkeeping point of view, but have no impact on the taxpayers' net assets. Indeed, according to local folklore, it was not that long ago that the city simply gave the land on which Pen-Hi sits to the school district. It seems a bit rich for the school board to come back now and demand fair market value.These costs were, in my opinion, too high for the short-term life span that these buildings would have, estimated to be five years.
In his June 29 letter, the mayor put the expected life of the Pen-Hi buildings at seven years. Now it is five? Several members of SONG with construction and building maintenance experience scoff at the seven year estimate (way too low).I am sure the school board would not accept the necessary increase to the footprint of these buildings that would be needed to accommodate new washrooms and change rooms to meet building code requirements.
Also not included into the overall cost is what the school district would have to charge for the lease of these two buildings and for how long they would provide the lease for.
- As noted above, the school board does not have a veto over city plans.
- How big are these washrooms going to be?
- Both the city and the school board are showing an appalling lack of creativity in addressing these problems. What happened to can-do spirit?
Again, this lease/fair market value issue is a red herring. Imagine the logical outcome:The additional cost of 200,000 tax dollars into operating these buildings would also conflict with the already subsidized operation of the Cleland Theatre, which is still not totally utilized. Does it make fiscal sense to have two city-owned theatres competing for the same market dollar?Residents of the city should see the decrease in school taxes exactly offset their increase in property taxes. People like me outside city limits would do slightly better, since we pay our property taxes to the RDOS, not the city and would receive an un-earned break on our school taxes. The logical solution is for the school to retain ownership of the land, charge a nominal lease (e.g., $1/year) and leave taxes where they are.
- City taxes go up to pay for the transfer of money to the school district.
- The school district now has new funds with which to meet its operating budget.
- School taxes go down to reflect the new revenue.
Careful here. If it does not make sense to have two theatres, why are we investing significant city resources ($2.5M so far—see below) into a new performing arts facility. Either utilization is an issue, or it is not.The solution to this issue is to have the school board to continue to operate these buildings.
Huh? I am not sure this follows. SD67 is getting a new gym for school use. They do not have any budget to operate the old buildings. Moreover, they have no mandate to operate them as community facilities—it is the city's responsibility to manage community facilities.The interest in a building a brand new performing arts facility was initiated prior to December 2005 at which time the previous council committed $20,000 towards a study on whether such a facility was needed. This project was spearheaded by individuals who had a keen interest on developing more cultural activity in the city and bringing the city up to what both Vernon and Kelowna already have.
Which brings up a good point: Where is this feasibility analysis. Given that it was paid for with city money and donations (some large-ish donations actually came from SONG members), the feasibility analysis should be publicly available. I can't find it on the Internet.The report confirmed that a new performing arts centre would be a benefit to the city and be well supported.
According to Statscan, the Penticton area is home to roughly 43K people. Vernon has 55K and Kelowna has 162K. Maybe Vernon is still a good reference point, but comparing to Penticton to Kelowna is inappropriate—they are nearly four times our size.
Confirmed? Really? Let's see the report.In 2006 I first met with Don Grant, who had initiated the appeal to the previous council for funding of the study. He submitted three locations that his board felt would be appropriate for the building. Staff was then directed to work with the group and find a suitable location. One being the site of the existing auditorium and gymnasium — this site was unacceptable to the school board because it would restrict any future development plans they may have for that site.
Again, look at the census data. We already have more high school space than we are going to need in the coming 20-30 years. What expansion does the school board have in mind?It is the interest of this group who is spearheading this project to have it jointly funded by the province, the federal government and through private donations. It is also the intent of this group to have their own management staff run and promote the new facility. Their objective, which they feel they can achieve, is to be totally independent of the city.
Good, but this is still a risk, is it not?Last week an agreement was reached between the city and the owner of the property north of Nanaimo Hall to purchase the property at a cost of $1.25 million. This will be paid out of the city’s capital reserve fund. All these resulting decisions are, in my opinion, positive news for the city and its future.
Let's be clear about these numbers: $1.25 of new land plus a comparable parcel of city-owned land (Nanaimo Hall) means a grant to the Penticton and District Performing Arts Facility Society (PDPAFS) of $2.5M of taxpayers' money. Whether this money came from reserve funds is irrelevant: it is all public money. Given this sizable investment of taxpayers' money in this initiative, it is odd that no documentation on the project is available on the web. Why is this? How are local taxpayers supposed to understand their investment?Hopefully this explanation with these three projects will clarify my involvement with them and set the record straight.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Carol Ann Trabert: Sequel to Markin's fairy tale
The following response to Allan Markin's column appeared in the July 25th, 2007, edition of The Herald:
Dear Sir,
Having arisen from my 'fainting couch', I offer the following for your consideration.
Then tragedy struck this man and he took leave of those educated opinions he had earned over the years, and became tempted by the Next Big New Thing cult. He succumbed to New Building Dementia, which involves a single-mindedness to the New and forsakes rationality, even being prepared to sacrifice an existing, functioning facility. (Wonder if he would cut off his nose if the Cult assured him another one could be constructed for him in--well 36 months to 10 years) This poor man lost his ability to appreciate anything not New, which is a side effect of New Building Dementia. Another side effect is Money Madness, which manifests itself in an inability to recognize zeros in a dollar context. This madness is epidemic in many bureaucracies, owing largely to the fact that those spending the money do not have to be mindful of its source. It is rumoured that some think there are money grow-ops hidden in the government buildings, providing a fresh crop on a regular basis. But the ultimate manifestation is being able to talk about $30,000,000.00 of taxpayer dollars as cheerfully as they might talk about buying lunch.
But, back to the saga. This poor man fell under the spell of the Next Big New Thing Cult with its Money Madness syndrome and even promoted the idea that it was 'bad' money that paid to erect the original auditorium and gymnasium. Rational, thinking citizens raised their eyebrows at this, and this enraged him and his Cult so much that they became thoroughly rude, demeaning, and even antagonistic in an effort to defend their indefensible position that only New is Good. The group he joined gathered to concoct outrageous plans to promote their Cult. They all drank deeply of the Economic Benefit Opiate, envisioning thousands of people flocking to attend performances and magically doubling--no tripling--the sales of every hardware, grocery and shoe store in the City. And so they stumbled through their days in a Haze of Unrealism.
And if the vision they seek to impose on the thousands of citizens who aren't drinking deeply of any opiate doesn't come to pass? Hope there will be another project for the Next Big New Thing Cult. Reality may just be too hard for them to accept.
Dear Sir,
Having arisen from my 'fainting couch', I offer the following for your consideration.
The Man Who Fell From High Reason
Twice upon a time, a highly educated man took on the challenges of leadership, first as a principal and then as the Chair of a dedicated group who wished to save a well constructed, acoustically perfect building that was, however, built over 50 years ago.Then tragedy struck this man and he took leave of those educated opinions he had earned over the years, and became tempted by the Next Big New Thing cult. He succumbed to New Building Dementia, which involves a single-mindedness to the New and forsakes rationality, even being prepared to sacrifice an existing, functioning facility. (Wonder if he would cut off his nose if the Cult assured him another one could be constructed for him in--well 36 months to 10 years) This poor man lost his ability to appreciate anything not New, which is a side effect of New Building Dementia. Another side effect is Money Madness, which manifests itself in an inability to recognize zeros in a dollar context. This madness is epidemic in many bureaucracies, owing largely to the fact that those spending the money do not have to be mindful of its source. It is rumoured that some think there are money grow-ops hidden in the government buildings, providing a fresh crop on a regular basis. But the ultimate manifestation is being able to talk about $30,000,000.00 of taxpayer dollars as cheerfully as they might talk about buying lunch.
But, back to the saga. This poor man fell under the spell of the Next Big New Thing Cult with its Money Madness syndrome and even promoted the idea that it was 'bad' money that paid to erect the original auditorium and gymnasium. Rational, thinking citizens raised their eyebrows at this, and this enraged him and his Cult so much that they became thoroughly rude, demeaning, and even antagonistic in an effort to defend their indefensible position that only New is Good. The group he joined gathered to concoct outrageous plans to promote their Cult. They all drank deeply of the Economic Benefit Opiate, envisioning thousands of people flocking to attend performances and magically doubling--no tripling--the sales of every hardware, grocery and shoe store in the City. And so they stumbled through their days in a Haze of Unrealism.
And if the vision they seek to impose on the thousands of citizens who aren't drinking deeply of any opiate doesn't come to pass? Hope there will be another project for the Next Big New Thing Cult. Reality may just be too hard for them to accept.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Allan Markin: City witnesses a performance for the ages
The following column appeared in the July 20th, 2007, edition of the Western News. Allan Markin is a Penticton freelance writer and a member of the Penticton and District Performing Arts Facilities Society (PDPAFS)
Once upon a time not so long ago, the citizens of Penticton awoke from a deep sleep, looked around at their peaceful little hamlet, and realized that the world was passing them by. Many liked it that way and went back to sleep. Some were sorely afflicted and began searching for mistakes made in the past by casting aspersions at previous civic leaders.
Others, looking into the future and calling themselves visionaries, began revising Penticton’s Official Community Plan. Soon there was building going on everywhere. Developers and speculators could be seen pounding on counters at City Hall, waving their plans around like broad swords. Sky cranes started flying above the city like giant albatrosses.
Tall (some said too tall) buildings began casting their shadows over previously quiet residential streets. Big-box retailers lined up at the city gates to beg for permission to locate in what was rapidly becoming a “boom” town. A roundabout to help eliminate massive downtown traffic jams was installed.
Soon the biggest and brightest jewel in the city’s crown, the South Okanagan Event Centre, was conceived, holding out the promise that Penticton would become the sporting capital of the region, maybe even the world. A few citizens complained about the excessive cost, but in a short time their protestations were heard no more. Some folks who value verdant parkland objected to losing green space. They too became silent. In a few short weeks power shovels occupied the site; they sat and waited for the command to dig, looking like a gang of praying mantis at a giant insect convention.
Another group of citizens, small in number but noted for their sober and perceptive thinking, asked: “what is missing from this picture?” They quickly concluded that Penticton and the South Okanagan did not have a state-of-the-art performing arts centre. They declared that such a shortcoming had to be remedied and immediately began working on the problem.
They had professionals study the situation, both as to need and feasibility, concluding that such a project was indeed much needed and doable. After careful study they also concluded that neither the Pen High auditorium nor the Cleland Theatre merited renovation. “Throwing good money after bad does not make practical economic sense,” they declared.
Officials at School District No. 67, engaged in building a new high school, remained steadfastly committed to demolishing the auditorium. Keeping it didn’t fit into their plans. City Hall decreed after careful analysis that renovating Cleland Theatre would be economically impractical, especially since renovations would compromise the integrity of several other parts on the Community Centre.
The resulting controversy was deafening. Refined ladies, overcome by powerful waves of nostalgia, rose from their fainting couches to plead, sometimes tearfully, that the auditorium, which was rumoured to have been built by the great ancient god Acousticus, must be saved.
They wrote letters to the newspapers. They evangelized on street corners. They sent angry e-mails. They engaged the support of experienced builders, whose knowledge of theatre design and operations was largely unknown. They cogitated and agitated, until several famous and not-so-famous performers were so moved that they just had to offer impassioned testimonials to the great hall, aka a tired, old high-school auditorium.
Soon the thunderous voice of an economist-soothsayer was heard coming from the wilderness in the west. He analyzed. He espoused conspiracy theories. He consulted his university text books. His views were published in the local paper.
Then, to everyone’s surprise, six former mayors came together, declaring that they had “buried their hatchets for this important civic cause.” Citizens who were keenly aware of past city politics didn’t believe them. Some reluctantly gave them the benefit of the doubt. Others wondered if any of the mayors had bothered to read the studies and reports that were available before joining the movement to save the old auditorium.
Everyone agreed that their communion was an excellent photo-op, especially if some of them were considering running for office in the next election. Everyone enjoyed the pretty picture that appeared on the front page of the local paper on what must have been a slow news day.
But the small group of visionaries working towards the creation of a modern performing arts centre remained undaunted. Knowing they had the facts on their side, they slept peacefully, dreaming of the multitudes flocking to the new facility to enjoy the great variety of performing arts.
They envisioned the rejuvenation of Penticton’s downtown core through the development of a fine multi-faceted cultural space that would become part of the city’s core infrastructure, an entity commonly seen in mature cities all around the world.
They marveled at the economic benefit that such a facility would bring to the city and region. They thrilled at the enhanced quality of life all citizens would enjoy. And they were glad.
Once upon a time not so long ago, the citizens of Penticton awoke from a deep sleep, looked around at their peaceful little hamlet, and realized that the world was passing them by. Many liked it that way and went back to sleep. Some were sorely afflicted and began searching for mistakes made in the past by casting aspersions at previous civic leaders.
Others, looking into the future and calling themselves visionaries, began revising Penticton’s Official Community Plan. Soon there was building going on everywhere. Developers and speculators could be seen pounding on counters at City Hall, waving their plans around like broad swords. Sky cranes started flying above the city like giant albatrosses.
Tall (some said too tall) buildings began casting their shadows over previously quiet residential streets. Big-box retailers lined up at the city gates to beg for permission to locate in what was rapidly becoming a “boom” town. A roundabout to help eliminate massive downtown traffic jams was installed.
Soon the biggest and brightest jewel in the city’s crown, the South Okanagan Event Centre, was conceived, holding out the promise that Penticton would become the sporting capital of the region, maybe even the world. A few citizens complained about the excessive cost, but in a short time their protestations were heard no more. Some folks who value verdant parkland objected to losing green space. They too became silent. In a few short weeks power shovels occupied the site; they sat and waited for the command to dig, looking like a gang of praying mantis at a giant insect convention.
Another group of citizens, small in number but noted for their sober and perceptive thinking, asked: “what is missing from this picture?” They quickly concluded that Penticton and the South Okanagan did not have a state-of-the-art performing arts centre. They declared that such a shortcoming had to be remedied and immediately began working on the problem.
They had professionals study the situation, both as to need and feasibility, concluding that such a project was indeed much needed and doable. After careful study they also concluded that neither the Pen High auditorium nor the Cleland Theatre merited renovation. “Throwing good money after bad does not make practical economic sense,” they declared.
Officials at School District No. 67, engaged in building a new high school, remained steadfastly committed to demolishing the auditorium. Keeping it didn’t fit into their plans. City Hall decreed after careful analysis that renovating Cleland Theatre would be economically impractical, especially since renovations would compromise the integrity of several other parts on the Community Centre.
The resulting controversy was deafening. Refined ladies, overcome by powerful waves of nostalgia, rose from their fainting couches to plead, sometimes tearfully, that the auditorium, which was rumoured to have been built by the great ancient god Acousticus, must be saved.
They wrote letters to the newspapers. They evangelized on street corners. They sent angry e-mails. They engaged the support of experienced builders, whose knowledge of theatre design and operations was largely unknown. They cogitated and agitated, until several famous and not-so-famous performers were so moved that they just had to offer impassioned testimonials to the great hall, aka a tired, old high-school auditorium.
Soon the thunderous voice of an economist-soothsayer was heard coming from the wilderness in the west. He analyzed. He espoused conspiracy theories. He consulted his university text books. His views were published in the local paper.
Then, to everyone’s surprise, six former mayors came together, declaring that they had “buried their hatchets for this important civic cause.” Citizens who were keenly aware of past city politics didn’t believe them. Some reluctantly gave them the benefit of the doubt. Others wondered if any of the mayors had bothered to read the studies and reports that were available before joining the movement to save the old auditorium.
Everyone agreed that their communion was an excellent photo-op, especially if some of them were considering running for office in the next election. Everyone enjoyed the pretty picture that appeared on the front page of the local paper on what must have been a slow news day.
But the small group of visionaries working towards the creation of a modern performing arts centre remained undaunted. Knowing they had the facts on their side, they slept peacefully, dreaming of the multitudes flocking to the new facility to enjoy the great variety of performing arts.
They envisioned the rejuvenation of Penticton’s downtown core through the development of a fine multi-faceted cultural space that would become part of the city’s core infrastructure, an entity commonly seen in mature cities all around the world.
They marveled at the economic benefit that such a facility would bring to the city and region. They thrilled at the enhanced quality of life all citizens would enjoy. And they were glad.
My editorial comment: This is a nice bit of writing that is meant, I suppose, to poke fun at some of the people involved in the current debate about the Pen-Hi gym and auditorium (myself included). This is all well and good, but there is something about PDPAFS's strategy that escapes me: Why are they attacking people who want to save the Pen-Hi buildings (S.O.N.G., ex-mayors, Dodi Morrison, etc.)?
There is nothing about building a new performing arts facility that precludes saving the Pen-Hi gym and auditorium. However, PDPAFS has created an unnecessary link between knocking down the old buildings and moving forward on the new. In my view, this this was a strategic blunder on their part because it casts those of us in favor of saving the Pen-Hi gym and auditorium as the opposition. It forces us to highlight the many risks and unknowns in PDPAFS's proposal in a desperate attempt to situate the Pen-Hi buildings as an insurance policy against their failure to raise sufficient funds. A vicious cycle ensues**. But this need not be the case—it should be possible to be in favor of both saving the Pen-Hi buildings and building a new performing arts facility.
In the best case, we end up with a new performing arts facility and the Pen-Hi buildings. Although the School District has been granted money for a new school and cannot publicly acknowledge that the new Pen-Hi's lack of an auditorium is a problem, some people in this town who have actually taught performing arts at Pen-Hi do see it as a problem. Fortunately, there is no reason that (once the new school is complete) students at Pen-Hi and other schools cannot make use of the old auditorium. In other words, Penticton could benefit from both a new performing arts facility and an old auditorium adjacent to Pen-Hi.
Alas, PDPAFS does not see it like this. I can only conclude that the leaders of PDPAFS believe they can further the society's agenda by actively obstructing and denigrating other agendas. Allan Markin's column provides an exemplar of this stratgy.
** A textbook-trained economist would instantly recognize this as a Prisoner's Dilemma (and seek to avoid it).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)