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).

Chris Terris: Pen High gym headed for destruction?

The following letter was printed in the Herald (28 Jan 2007):

The time has come to start some dialogue regarding the future of the Pen High gymnasium that is scheduled for destruction. Neither the school district nor the city has expressed any interest in saving the facility.

Despite the fact that Pen High will have a new gym as part of the ongoing construction, it makes no sense to destroy the old gym. First, it is a beautiful facility with great sight lines and a history and ambiance that won’t be duplicated by the new facility. Second, it was only a few years ago that it received half a million dollar upgrade. It will take a relatively modest financial commitment—estimated to be a million dollars—to make it a functional, stand-alone structure; however, its value to the community and school district go far beyond this.

Since the loss of the south gym at Pen High, physical education programs have struggled to accommodate the number of students—classes with sixty to ninety students in one gym are not very educationally productive. Add to this, the recent government legislation which restricts user fees (and, thus, threatens courses such as outdoor recreation, which have helped relieve pressure on facility use), and it doesn’t take much foresight to see the potential challenges that could be alleviated with a second facility. In addition, community user groups that often struggle for suitable gymnasiums must be dumbfounded to find out that a viable facility will meet the wrecking ball soon. Cadets; community soccer, baseball, and football programs; community center programs; and others all battle for gym access. Does it make sense to reduce the number of facilities we have in our community? Members of our business community benefiting from the visitors created by tournaments in our gyms must question the move as well. Ultimately, the cries by governments and educators about the dangers of obesity and need for regular fitness opportunities seem rather hollow given the lack of interest in maintaining facilities that we already possess.

It seems that a shared agreement between the school district and city makes the most sense given the benefit to both. The roadblocks standing in the way are not insurmountable. The political willpower may be.

Marylin Cleland Barnay: Pen High facilities an asset to the community

This letter was printed in the Western News Advertiser

By Marylin Cleland Barnay
Penticton
Mar 11 2007

Reference to the letters recently published in the Penticton Western News regarding the urgency to keep the Pen High gymnasium/Pen High auditorium from being flattened: “Time running out for historic buildings” (Fedorak Mar 2, Terris, Jan.28). Mr. Fedorak and Mr. Terris echo thoughts voiced by many in our local newspapers since the funding announcement by School District 67 for a new senior secondary school October 14, 2005.

Larry Little as chairman, School District 67, (picture and front-page article Kathy Michaels Mar 2 and subsequent letter to the editor), is “looking for an organization” to come forward with a plan before the end of the month in order to avoid demolition in spring of 2008. Do we have such an organization in our community? An individual? A benefactor? Mr. Little proudly states that the new senior secondary school will have more gym space than the north and south gyms combined. Bravo! With the number of students I am sure that will be appreciated and with public awareness for more activity, this will be a further bonus. Obviously our students will be well taken care of.

What about our community needs? Can Penticton be like other cities that provide facilities for the community like The Queen Elizabeth Theatre, the Orpheum, in Vancouver, Massey Theatre in New Westminster? Communities that are thinking as a community make concerted efforts to utilize what they have, make available and provide for arts, culture and recreation thus confirming that these are vital and essential elements in a balanced community. Community organizations, education and city work together for the benefit of all.

Ergo, realizing the need for an auditorium/gym in 1948 when our high school was being rebuilt. Forward-thinking school, city leaders and citizens applauded the chance for the “companion buildings” (Pen High auditorium and gymnasium) as an addition to the new high school. (At the official opening on May 8, 1952 the cost was shared by the city and education department — for all in the community).

In recent years as a “designated classroom”, accessibility of the auditorium has been restricted, conservation has been minimal, uninviting to touring performers. To upgrade and improve would be considered positive. Financially at this time, it seems practical. The recently talked about state-of-the-art performing art centre (by the PDPAFS) is anticipated. Right now, however, it cannot take the place of these two on Eckhardt East but, with the suggestions of growth, it too, should become a necessity and an asset.

To many of us retaining Pen High auditorium/gym is not obscure but rather, preserves a valuable community asset. Serious solving is unavoidable! Demolition costs and additional piles at the landfill? Or protecting the assets we have now for our community?

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?

Fred Fedorak: Letter to City Council

To: Penticton City Council:

I have written letters to the editors of the two local papers, Herald and Advertiser in regard to the planned destruction of the Pen Hi auditorium and gymnasium. I have also sent a copy of the same letter to Council and School District 67. This note is to make you aware of this action on my part, and to also make a personal appeal to you to try and save these venues for the good of the community.

Because School District 67 is not interested in preserving the above buildings, I believe that the only way that they can be saved for community use, is for the City of Penticton to come to some form of arrangement with the School District to transfer those buildings to the City. Which, I realize that it also means the transfer of maintenance and upgrade costs.

I understand that you have a significant number of projects that are at the top of your priority list. We have two structurally sound buildings with the possibility of several years of usage that can never be replaced without significant overwhelming construction costs. Granted substantial money has to be made available to up grade the buildings so they can stand alone When they are destroyed, we will have asphalt to take their place, which translates into considerably more parking spaces which will be more than adequate for school usage. If we do not make a concentrated effort to conclude an accommodation with the School District, we could miss a great opportunity to prevent the loss of two very sound buildings. To me this does not make very good economic sense.

Before the Arts Council obtains the financing for their planned Arts Center, what building will they use for their needs? Would it not be prudent to keep the auditorium in use until such time as money becomes available? What is wrong with putting the new Arts Center in the same location as the present site of the auditorium? >From my perspective, if the building goes down, that group no longer has a suitable venue for current use.

Please consider what impact the loss of four venues, Pen HI Auditorium, Pen Hi South Gym, Pen HI North Gym and Nanaimo Hall will have on the community. With our growing and ageing population, demand for recreational and performing arts venues will increase not decrease in demand,

If financing is not available what is wrong with mothballing the sites until Council has the funds to upgrade and maintain them? It makes no sense to upgrade and save one site and not the other that is why I have combined my appeal to save both buildings.

Respectfully submitted

Fred Fedorak
Citizen of Penticton since 1959