Update: SONG meets with the school board

A handful of SONG members met with the SD67 school board on Monday, May 14th, 2007, to present a case for saving the Pen-Hi auditorium and gym. An account of the meeting appeared in the Western News:

Plea to save Pen High buildings unlikely to sway board

By KATHY MICHAELS
Western News Staff
May 16 2007

A thorough list of why and how Penticton Secondary’s north gym and auditorium should remain in the community was presented to the school board on Monday, but to-date the district still intends to move ahead with their demolition plans.

About a dozen supporters of keeping the buildings intact filed into the Okanagan Skaha board meeting to plead their case to trustees, and they came armed with a litany of support letters, a petition 600 signatures strong in addition to some empirical evidence for keeping the structures up and running.

Dr. Sandy Congram addressed the board and outlined the group dubbed Save Our North Gym and Auditorium’s proposal. Leaving ownership of the facilities in the hands of the district, Congram proposed that the city lease and manage the recreational space and mirror what is being done successfully in several other communities throughout the province. According to Congram, both facilities are intrinsic parts of the community and, at this juncture, it would be imprudent to remove them, especially when it’s clear they won’t be replaced now that funds are tied up by projects like the South Okanagan Event Centre.

One of the key aspects of the groups proposal was a financial analysis by Greyback Construction Ltd. and Ron Mason. According to the evaluation, everything from maintenance, to upgrades of the building would tally up to approximately $1.14 million.

Noting that the funds needed for the project are minor in comparison to what would be needed to re-build the facilities, Congram said initial planning meetings that were held three years ago didn’t reflect the issues that are present today. “This is a matter of political will and looking at what we will need in the community,” she said. “It’s wasteful to tear the buildings down — we need them.”

Although trustees and district staff listened attentively during Congram’s presentation, school board chair Larry Little didn’t move from their original assertions. However, because of community interest Little said the district will take another look at the options. “We are still firm that it doesn’t suit our educational purposes, but we are going to explore some site options,” said Little.

Little highlighted four non-negotiable items that the district will keep mindful of if the city does decide to support SONG’s proposal for funding. “We need to maintain student safety, a bus in and out area, green space and adequate parking,” he said. Little also said that it was re-assuring to have contact with the group. Referring to the Greyback Construction cost analysis Little said the information will be taken seriously. “It’s a good document, there’s some substantial information in there,” he said, adding that the district is still waiting from a decision from the city.

Update: Petition circulated at Chilliwack concert

According to a review on Page B10 of The Penticton Herald on 25 April, 2007, more than 500 people attended the recent Chilliwack concert held at Pen-Hi auditorium. The piece by John Moorehouse concludes:

"That brings me to the final note of the concert: the venue itself. A petition was circulated prior to the show, calling for the preservation of the Pen-Hi auditorium. Unless city council comes up with a plan to preserve the building by the end of June, the auditorium will face the wrecking ball once the Pen-Hi reconstruction project is complete in 2008. Most concert-goers readily signed, well aware of the auditorium's fine acoustics and value to the community."

Update: No feasible, concrete plans?

According School District 67 chair Larry Little, as quoted in an article on Page A4 of The Herald on 19 April, 2007, "In spite of the number of comments and concerns being raised, no person or group has come up with a feasible and concrete plan to save the [gym]."

Mr. Little goes on to deny that there is a shortage of gym space in Penticton: "While some letters to the board and local newspaper write about the need for having the additional gym space in the community, Little pointed out there is gym space in the currently available not being used. 'We have elementary school, we have another secondary school here in Princess Margaret and we also have middle schools,' he said. 'A lot of time these facilities are not being used, they're not utilized on a weekend...that space is available.' Little says the school board encourages those looking for space to phone the school district or check in with the community centre to inquire what facilities are available."

My editorial comments:

First, it appears that Mr. Little has forgotten about the meeting with the City of Penticton in which the mayor expressed an interest in saving both buildings as community facilities (this meeting is also referenced in the the school board minutes—item 6)

Second, I cannot agree with Mr. Little's assertions about excess gym capacity. SONG members have consulted with several employees of the city's parks and recreation department and we have heard a consistent message: demand for the gym space exceeds capacity. Perhaps the source of the discrepancy between Mr. Little and those who actually schedule gym-based programs has arisen because the school board considers gym time and space to be fungible. That is, they assume that one hour in the Uplands Elementary School gym on a Sunday morning is interchangeable with one hour in the Pen-Hi gym on a Wednesday evening. As many have already pointed out, and I have argued in a previous posting, the Pen-Hi gym is a unique space. That it sits empty in non-prime-time hours is not really the point—time and place matter. The school buses that Mr. Little appears to hold in such high regard are also empty on Sunday mornings, but I do not see the school board sending all the "excess" buses to the crusher. Now that I think of it, the average utilization of our fire trucks seems low too...

In addition, the school board seems to think that demand occurs in a vacuum. It does not. Demand is a function of price, which is a function of supply. Increase the supply of gym space, make it easier for both the city's parks and rec department and community groups to schedule events, and demand that we never imagined will materialize (see induced demand). It is sort of like, "Build it and they will come." Except, in this case, it is already built.

Update: A FAQ has been posted

We have created a "frequently asked questions" (FAQ) document for new supporters of S.O.N.G. There is a link to the FAQ in the section called "important documents" on the right of this page. Or you can click here.

The point of the FAQ is to bring everyone who is interested in S.O.N.G. up to speed. Members of S.O.N.G. have already met several times since early March and have had numerous consultations with representatives from the City of Penticton, School District 67, and the performing arts community. We will use the FAQ as a concise summary of what we have learned along the way. Please let me know if you encounter any errors or omissions.

Update: The taxpayer's left hand slaps its right hand?

There was a short news article on Page A3 of the Herald (19 March, 2007):

"City council has decided to use the time between now and the school district's June 1 deadline for a decision on the Penticton Secondary School auditorium to conduct a facilities inventory [...] In a prepared statement, Mayor Jake Kimberley said the city would look into the cost of taking over the auditorium. He added that the city had heard 'loud and clear' there are differing priorities, which include not only a performing arts centre but expanding the swimming pool."

I found the omission of the gym in this story odd, since the city had said it was considering both buildings. The story in Western provides some additional information, including a telling quote from the school board chair:

"Okanagan-Skaha school board trustees this week gave the city until June 1 to decide whether it wants to submit a proposal to run the Pen High auditorium as a stand-alone facility. The original deadline was March 31.

The city also expressed interested in taking over the north gym, but that option is now off the table, said Larry Little, chairman.

While the auditorium has overshadowed the north gym, its fate has generated considerable attention in recent weeks, with several citizens calling for its preservation.

'It (the north gym) is still our property and it is still our decision,' he said, noting that the new Pen High school now under construction will include more recreational space."

My editorial comments:

I think it is important to address Mr. Little's misapprehension head on: It is clearly not his gym. Nor is it the school district's gym or the Ministry of Education's gym. It is our gym. We, as taxpayers, employ various people to look after our gym, but this does not mean these employees have ultimate authority. It is like the driver of a city bus saying, 'This is my bus'. Yes we delegate enormous responsibility and decision autonomy to the drivers of our buses. But we do not grant them the power to veto all decisions made regarding the use and disposition of "their" buses. Nor should the school board grant itself a veto and presume to know that taxpayers would prefer, say, a parking lot to a community gymnasium.

The SOAP proposal essentially involves transfer of our gym from the administrative oversight of one body of elected officials (the school board) to the administrative oversight of a different body of elected officials (city council). Contrary to Mr. Little's assertion, no real change of ownership is involved. I think the school board should keep this in mind.

Of course, we recognize that the school board has a mandate to ensure the new school works. Fair enough. However, this does not mean that the school board should act contrary to the interests of the community in seeking to fulfill its mandate. The new Pen-Hi, after all, is part of the community. As Mayor Kimberley points out, we have finite resources. We cannot afford to have the left hand of the taxpayer working to spite its right hand.

Update: School board grants extension until June 1st

From Page A3 of the Herald (16 March, 2007):

"The Okanagan Skaha school board is giving the city until June 1 to complete its investigation of costs involved in saving the Pen-Hi auditorium, but remains firm in its plans to tear down the school's gymnasium [...] Little said the board agreed to extend its previous March 31 deadline, but only for the city to look into preserving the auditorium.

[...] If the north gym is preserved, Ministry of Education guidelines call for the floor space of the new gymnasium to be decreased accordingly.

The north gym site of Eckhardt Avenue is seen as critical for a bus entrance to the new school parking lot, as well as a green space and a 'safe zone' for students in the area."

My editorial comments:

The objective of SOAP is for the City of Penticton to take over both the Pen-Hi auditorium and north gym for community use. In return, the school district may be compensated with money or a land swap. Or perhaps they will simply be asked to do without a green space and safe zone. These are implementation details. Naturally, if the taxpayers of Penticton are on the hook for the "fair market value" of the land in question, we should expect the proceeds of the sale to benefit the school district. Thus, funds requested of taxpayers in School District 67 should be reduced accordingly.

I personally find Mr. Little's assertions regarding what the school district will and will not allow a bit troubling. Why would the school board (which is elected by citizens of the community to serve citizens of the community) stand in the way of another elected body (the municipal government) if that government wants to act on behalf of the community and make a proposal regarding the gymnasium? I understand that the school board has its mandate and that mandate is different from that of the municipal government. But let's not lose sight of the fact that there is only one set of interests that matter here, and they are the broad interests of the community as a whole. One group of taxpayers pays the bills for both the school district and the city.

As for the oft-repeated threat that Pen-Hi will lose gym space if the north gym is saved, this would only be the case if the school district retained the gym for its own use. (Plus, this might be a more convincing threat if the foundation for the new school was not already in place.) Since the proposal currently being investigated by the city specifies community, rather than school ownership of the facilities, I am not sure why Mr. Little keeps bringing this up. We get it: The school board does not want the gym and auditorium for school use (despite what all the folks who actually teach at Pen-Hi are saying). More importantly, we get the underlying message that the school board has no money to contribute to saving the buildings. But it is the school board's turn to get our message: The community wants the gym and auditorium for community use.

Finally, there is the issue of the "green space" and "safe zones". These terms are much more attractive than "parking lot", so I see why they have been inserted into the discourse by the school board chair. Knocking down good buildings to make room for a parking lot sounds scandalous; but who can argue with green space and safe zones for bus unloading? I, for one, am a bit skeptical. Green space and safe zones sound like nice things, but I am not sure they are "critical", as Mr. Little asserts. We are talking about Pen-Hi here, not an elementary school. If these students are so vulnerable to traffic, how come they seem to have no problem skipping across Main Street every day at lunch? And let's face it, a green zone that is on school property (and hence unusable by smokers) might as well be a parking lot. Indeed, the mass exodus across Main Street every day at noon would be much less massive if the existing green space in front of the Shatford and Ellis buildings was highly valued by students.

Ultimately, we as taxpayers and citizens have to recognize the nature of this alleged trade-off: Do we want safe zone and green space for our kids (young adults, really) or do we want a gym and auditorium for everyone? Or can we have both? Clearly, saving these two large buildings is going to create challenges for the designers of the new Pen-Hi. However, as taxpayers, we should expect these challenges to be addressed with some creativity and resourcefulness. In my view, repackaging a parking lot as a safe zone falls short of the standard.

Update: City asks school board for extension

From Page A3 of the Herald (14 March, 2007):

"The City of Penticton has asked for an extension for the March 31st deadline hovering over the fate of the Pen-Hi auditorium. Mayor Jake Kimberley and city staff met with Okanagan Skaha school board chair Larry Little, School District 67 staff and performing arts community representatives in closed-door sessions at City Hall on Tuesday.

[...] Kimberley said preliminary estimates for adding a separate heating and air conditioning system for the auditorium, along with washrooms and other improvements could total about $1.5 million. The city is also looking into whether the adjacent north gym could also be saved and operated as a community facility. The mayor suggested additional costs for taking over the gym could be minimal."

Betty Clark, president of the Penticton branch of the Okanagan Symphony Society was also quoted in the story:

"Clark suggested by saving the auditorium, even on a temporary basis, it would allow more time to properly plan for a new performing arts centre in Penticton. 'We can't put all our eggs in to sports venues,' she said. [...] Clark said the symphony has been unable to book most of its performances in the 730-seat Pen-Hi auditorium due to its use by school drama classes." (see also Marylin Cleland Barnay's comments on this issue).

Update: Some progress!

There was a very small story on page A5 of the Okanagan Saturday newspaper (10 March 07) titled: "Facilities' fate not sealed just yet".

"[...] Penticton city council has ordered a detailed look into saving the Pen-Hi auditorium and gymnasium. At a special in-camera meeting on Friday, council ordered city staff to investigate costs and other issues related to taking over the 730-seat auditorium as a stand-alone facility, as well as the adjacent gymnasium.

Mayor Jake Kimberley emphasized council has not decided whether or not the city will take over the two school facilities, but recognizes the community need for both performing arts and recreational space. 'At this stage, we are not even sure if these facilities will meet those needs and we must do due diligence first,' he said. Previously, Kimberley has said the city has no interest in preserving the gymnasium, but would only consider taking over the auditorium."

What a difference a couple of days and a show of public support make... Speaking of public support, there were several new letters to the editor published this week:

• Marylin Cleland Barnay provided some historical background on community involvement in the auditorium (letter from the Western News Advertiser reprinted here)
• David Snyder encouraged the city to "avert a disgraceful loss" in the Herald.
• Jeanne Lamb took issue with the Herald's stance against city involvement ("Yes, council is responsible"). In discussing the chasm between the school board and city government, she points out that, "A majority of the taxpayers served by these two elected groups are one and the same."

Update: Voices in favor, voices against

Voices in favor:

Herald Letters, 07 March, 2007
“[Regarding the Pen-Hi auditorium] we’d like to state that we support the continued usage of this historic venue in the community. In fact we’ll be there on Friday, April 20 with [Chilliwack]. And we’ll raise the roof to the rafters and rock the place to its foundations—just to demonstrate one more time, what a great venue it still is. We invite the community to join us and support the preservation of this perfectly good performance space—before she’s gone, gone, gone.”

Ken Smedley
George Ryga Centre

Herald Letters, 08 March, 2007
“To say Pen-Hi’s facilities were the envy of other dramatic arts teachers in the valley would be an understatement […] Destroying what we have with no future option in sight makes no sense to me, especially when you consider the heavy use currently being scheduled.” [list of activities in the auditorium]

Megan Rutherford
Fine Arts Department Head
Penticton Secondary School

Voices against:

Herald Editorial, 06 March, 2007
“Obviously, the City of Penticton, facing a massive $17 million overrun for its own mega-construction project, the South Okanagan Events Centre, is stretched so thin it would be unable to save both facilities single-handedly. While council has expressed an interest in doing what can to save the auditorium, this will mean stretching the budget considerably.

Even if council had some magic pool of funds available, the city is not, and should not be, in the business of saving school property from the wrecking ball—even though it has already come to the school board’s rescue once in saving the Shatford building. Nor should the city be held responsible if the desired facilities are not saved.”

S. Paul Varga
Managing Editor
Penticton Herald

Herald Local Page, 07 March, 2007
“Kimberley said council now has a clearer idea of what the cost of [taking over the Pen-Hi auditorium] would entail […] Kimberley emphasized discussion will focus only on the auditorium and that the city has no desire to take over the gym. ‘There has been no discussion regarding the gymnasium at this council level,’ he said.”

My editorial comments:

I draw one conclusion from Mr. Smedley and Ms. Rutherford’s letters to the editor: There is some support within the “performing arts community” for saving the gym. I have always understood that the local performing arts community spoke with one voice in opposition to saving the Pen-Hi auditorium (ostensibly to increase their chances of getting a new facility). It seems, however, that some within the community see things differently. This is important and encouraging.

As for Mr. Varga’s assertions regarding the gym, I must admit that I am a bit surprised. In my view, he is exactly wrong:

• If the city is stretched so thin, how can it afford to chase a new $25M performing arts centre? Should it not attempt to make do with the facilities that are already in place? The estimated costs of saving the auditorium are in the area of $1.5M.
  
• It is incorrect to frame this as the city saving school property from the wrecking ball. The Pen-Hi gym and auditorium are two functional buildings that the Ministry of Education in Victoria has decided to make surplus. As such, we in the community are faced with an opportunity to swoop down and get these facilities at a bargain. This is no charity mission to help the school district (they are getting a shiny new school); rather, it is clear-eyed economic rationality on the part of the citizens of Penticton.
• As for not holding the city responsible if this opportunity is squandered, I say this is nonsense. We expect our governments at all levels to step in and provide public goods (in the formal economic sense) that markets are unwilling to supply. Thus, we rely on governments to provide sewers (to combat disease epidemics) and armed forces (to protect our national interests) and artistic and recreational facilities (to develop our citizens). There may or may not be pent-up demand for the surplus gym and auditorium in Penticton (naturally, I believe there is). The point is, a local government can surely be expected to conduct a full analysis of any opportunity that creates cultural and recreational benefits for local citizens. Are we crazy to expect some leadership on this issue from City Hall?