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.

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).

Dodi Morrison: City misusing its resources

The following appeared in the July 15, 2007, edition of the Western News:

Recently Mayor Kimberley wrote a letter to the editor explaining how prohibitively expensive it would be to retain the auditorium and gymnasium. I’m sure he hoped this would convince us of the immediate necessity of contributing to a new concert hall (on land donated by the city I am told.)

Of course an equally convincing letter could have been written if he had wanted to defend not taking those buildings down. He mentioned that although our taxes would go up for keeping those buildings, we need fear nothing as the new concert hall would be built with money taken from “reserves.”

“Reserves?” Did anyone know about these? Where were they when we begged for affordable housing? Where was the land now so available — I’m told — for the concert hall? Offers made regarding low-cost housing were turned down. I am reminded of the old story of Marie Antionette when told that the people had no bread —”Let them eat cake!” she replied.

Not long ago a short article in the local paper told of the city of Trail’s dilemna. Apparently there is a lack of affordable housing in both Trail and Rossland. So much so that the nearby ski resort of Red Mountain was having great difficulty finding people to clean its rooms. I wonder where all the new occupants of the condos going up around us will find a cleaning lady? And that is just one of the town’s many services that will be needed by those seniors.

But back to those two buildings. How many people realize that the new school will have no auditorium? Only an activity room, with bleachers. I know from a friend in another such school in another city how frustrating that can be — and how much confusion is caused whenever an event takes place. Our present auditorium has been well used by our gifted music teachers — not only the one at Pen High but other schools’ too. And with some cosmetic repairs it could last for another 50 years. The main part is still solid. Just the stage area needs replacing, and rooms added for dressing rooms, toilets and a hall. The concert hall in Metaline Falls is part of a school far older, which was revived and made into a cultural centre. The Falls is a tiny town (just across the border from Yak) but we met people there from Colville and Spokane at one of its good concerts. “All this talk of nostalgia and sentiment is insulting!” one long- time concert goer said to me.

Well, the mayors have spoken — and it was quite an announcement. Let’s hope they will now bully the necessary people, give us the leadership we crave and get things going.

It can’t be too soon for me — I have learned a whole other vocabulary I never expect to use — cuss words completely new to me! Masses of people really think council has lost its head over this.

And no doubt we’ll get the lovely new concert hall in about 10 years’ time anyway. By then we will need both halls. But meanwhile wouldn’t it be nice if we pulled together for once and saved a whole lot of great events? As for more parking — when what we need is to get more cars off the road — that’s insane. The school board and teachers should start getting kids to walk. Bribe them — have a competition — offer big rewards — whatever it takes. The traffic is appalling and the last thing we need to do is encourage it to get worse.

I wonder how many know that when Jeff Hyslop performed here he made an impassioned plea for the auditorium? Even though he is now in New York, he knew its value.

John Cornelissen: Bulldozing bad business

The following appeared in The Herald and the 13 July, 2007, edition of the Western News:

I grew up in a home that was over a century old. Although heavily damaged during the Second World War, it was repaired and the building may well last another century. The motto “waste not want not,” was firmly brought home to me. It is paramount and ought to be adhered to buildings with a number of years of remaining useful life, on which replacement costs are many times its upgrading costs.

Reading Mayor Kimberley’s letter justifying bulldozing the buildings, one wonders how much credibility it should be given. He talked about doing away with the buildings as soon as it was suggested to save them and long before any analysis was made. The taxpayers have not been presented with a detailed cost-benefit analysis. For instance:

A) Why generate the $ 1.2 million to $1.5 million borrowing costs for renovation with a one per cent property tax increase while the borrowing of $ 2.5 million for the cemetery upgrade results in a 0.95 per cent tax increase?

B) Where is the off-setting factor of the income generated by the gymnasium and auditorium against the operation and maintenance cost? What about operation and maintenance cost for the new performing arts centre?

C) What will be the impact on property taxes for the estimated $30 million cost of a new performing arts centre?

D) The statement “monies for the purchase of land for a performing arts centre site would be taken out of the capital reserve fund and therefore would not require a property tax increase” is grossly misleading. It means the money is not available for other capital projects and therefore will be borrowed and become a burden on the taxpayers!

The mayor told us that the contract of the event centre that was awarded would cost the taxpayer a cup of coffee. How wrong did that statement proved to be? Are figures being twisted for the mayor’s pet projects?

I suggest we hold a reverse petition borrowing bylaw for the upgrading of the Penticton gymnasium and auditorium similar to the other reverse petitions for the wellness centre and the cemetery upgrade.

In closing the mayor talks about the safety aspect of school traffic onto Eckhardt Avenue. Why not follow through with Ed Bonthoux’s recommendation and subscribed to by a former mayor that school generated traffic ought to be directed to Jermyn Avenue.

Michael Brydon: Deliberately creating a facilities deficit

A slightly edited version of the following letter appeared in the July 12th, 2007, edition of The Herald:

Some leaders in our community, including Mayor Kimberley and Councilor McIvor subscribe to a theory. The theory is that Penticton has a better chance of raising the $30M or so that is required for a new 700-seat performing arts facility if our existing 700-seat auditorium is demolished. By deliberately creating a facilities deficit for the performing arts in Penticton (the theory goes) we can somehow compel senior levels of government to step in with most of the money for a new venue.

This is clearly a controversial gamble so its adherents seem reluctant to acknowledge their theory in public. Instead, they rely on a collection of surrogate arguments in an attempt to cast demolition of the two Pen-Hi buildings as the only fiscally responsible course of action. The problem is that these surrogate arguments are so clearly bogus. Take for example Mayor Kimberley’s recent assertion that it would be financially irresponsible for the city to spend up to $230,000 per year to operate the Pen-Hi auditorium (and gym) given that the auditorium averages only 37 events per year. This argument has at least two flaws. The first—which must have proponents a new $30M facility squirming—is that a new performing arts facility will also incur operating costs but will require an additional $8.5M of local taxpayers’ money to build. To state the obvious, this is a lot of money for 37 performances per year. How can the mayor describe himself as the champion of hard-nosed fiscal responsibility (in the face of irrational sentimentality) when the total cost of saving the two Pen-Hi buildings does not even amount to a year’s interest on the total cost of his preferred alternative? A more troubling problem is that the operating cost estimate used by the mayor includes the salary of a full-time coordinator for the performing arts. It is clear, however, that the city intends to staff this coordinator position regardless of what happens to the Pen-Hi buildings. In other words, the cost of the coordinator is irrelevant to the decision at hand and only serves to artificially inflate the operating cost estimate of the Pen-Hi gym and the auditorium. This is not kosher.

If you take a look at the SONG website (http://saveournorthgym.blogspot.com), you will see that some members of the community (myself among them) have spent time collecting information, looking at the numbers, and attempting to refute the steady stream misinformation, red herrings, and inconsistent logic from local leaders on this issue. We continue in our efforts because we believe the Pen-Hi gym and auditorium represent an unprecedented opportunity for the city to acquire valuable assets at a bargain price. Moreover, we are confident that we represent the majority view. The city’s own survey showed that most respondents (60%) were in favor of the city acquiring the buildings for community use.

Unfortunately, SONG has made little headway with local decision makers because the ruling clique never really cared much about the facts and details. Instead, they seem to be fully committed to their beguiling but seldom-articulated theory. This creates problems for SONG, which is, and always has been, firmly in favor of a new performing arts facility. We recognize that senior levels of government—who are essential sources of funding for the new facility—might tell Penticton to make do with what we have if the Pen-Hi auditorium remains standing. On the other hand, we point to the risk of being too clever by half—of destroying two valuable community resources in the name of an unproven theory. Many of us believe that the risk of being left empty handed outweighs the speculative benefits of gambling. After all, we would have been crazy to knock down Memorial Arena in 2003 when we still had no funding in place for a new (at that time) $30M events centre. More tellingly, we would be crazy to knock Memorial Arena down now, even though funding for the events centre is in place and the old building is architecturally unappealing. But perhaps as mere spectators on the outside of the political machine, we are in no position to question our elected leaders on such matters of fine strategic judgment.

The recent statement by all living ex-mayors of Penticton (save the sitting mayor, of course) changes all this. A formidable group of political veterans has delivered an unambiguous and unanimous verdict on our current leadership’s pet theory. They recommend that funding be secured for the new performing arts facility before any consideration be given to flattening our only large auditorium (and, as collateral damage, a much-needed gymnasium) to make room for a school parking lot. This is a welcome infusion of high-octane common sense into an issue that has become needlessly murky and muddled. Recipients of the ex-mayors’ rebuke are certainly free to dig in their heels, cling to their pet theory, and dismiss the collective expertise of the group as sentimental, negative, impractical, or (most absurdly) uninformed. But an unwillingness to even consider the recommendations of such a group says much about our current leadership’s willingness to place reckless bets.

The Western: Mayors facing an uphill battle

The following editorial appeared in the Western News on July 6th, 2007:

It is hard to downplay the political optics of seeing six former mayors unite in criticizing council’s refusal to assume ownership of two school buildings scheduled for demolition.

Al Kenyon, Ivan Messmer, Dorothy Tinning, Beth Campbell, Mike Pearce and David Perry do not necessarily share similar backgrounds and views. But they have all sat in the chair now occupied by Mayor Jake Kimberley and that grants their views a certain gravity.

So people pay attention when these elder statespeople issue a joint statement opposing the destruction of the Penticton Secondary School auditorium and the north gym without replacements in place.

Whether this “desperate” appeal in the words of Campbell will save the buildings from the wrecking ball is uncertain. The odds appear to be against it.

Only two current councillors, Dan Ashton and John Vassilaki, opposed the city’s refusal to assume ownership of the two buildings and even their opposition was not unanimous. Local school board officials and the provincial government have also made it clear they are not interested in saving the facilities.

This has left the city as the only government agency capable of saving the facilities and we already know how it feels. So supporters of saving the facilities face a difficult task in translating public sentiment into political leverage.

Kimberley is certainly saying the right things in acknowledging the emotional aspect of the current debate, while trying to deflate it with a whole host of facts and figures that justify the direction of the city as it moves forward with plans for a new performing arts facility. Everybody generally agrees that the city needs such a facility.

Sorry, but I can't let this part slide: Where does this emotional/sentimental/nostalgic stuff come from? SONG's argument is at its core an economic and social argument.

But the critics say the city cannot afford do without the auditorium until it has built that new facility. And if recreational groups are clamouring for more space after the loss of Nanaimo Hall, why tear down a functional gym?

But these arguments are still looking for new converts. The city has so far dominated the commanding heights of this issue. But Thursday’s political rally has left us with the distinct and teasing impression that some among this Group of Six still carry dry powder.

Jake Kimberley: Price too steep to save school buildings

The following appeared in the June 29th editions of both The Herald and the Western News:

Having to put sentiment aside when dealing with the responsibility of spending tax dollars, my decision regarding the Pen High Auditorium and Gymnasium was based on that responsibility alone, not the sentimental value of these two buildings.

I am not sure why the Destroy Our Gym but Mainly the Auditorium (D.O.G.M.A.) group keeps calling proponents of saving the gym and auditorium “sentimental” (recall Ben Amos’ first letter as well). I don’t think SONG has ever offered a sentimental reason for saving the buildings. This is merely a form of name calling, of dismissing dissent.

Plus the issue of safety re: the increased traffic around the property now and into the future.

Costs associated with the renovation and upgrade of these two buildings was provided by an independent consultant hired by the city and a local well-known construction company. The estimates were $1.7 million and $1.5 million respectively.

Okay, this is just plain sloppy. Look at the memo from the city’s Director of Special Projects, Barry Reid: On page 2, it clearly states that the city’s estimate (reviewed by an independent quantity surveyor) is $1.5M. Greyback’s quote was $1.2M.

These cost estimates did not take into consideration the unknown costs that are often found when renovating older buildings, if you were to investigate similar projects you would find this to be the case.

Take, for example, the risk of asbestos (which the mayor spent some time discussing during the June 4th, 2007, city council meeting as a possible unknown cost). As the mayor certainly knows, asbestos is safe when inert. Things become costly when asbestos insulation is disturbed, say, during a renovation or demolition. Bottom line: it costs $X to deal with asbestos during a renovation and at least $X to deal with asbestos during a demolition. Either way, the taxpayer picks up the tab.

Any renovation work to these buildings would require them to be brought up to the latest building code requirements, such as a sprinkler system, plus additional washrooms. Washrooms and change rooms would also have to be constructed behind the stage area plus a larger lobby for the entranceway would also have to meet the building code. As stand-alone buildings they would require an additional electrical room, a new source of heating, and air conditioning units would have to be installed. The school board staff were also concerned about the exterior of these buildings and how they would appear against the new school. This exterior upgrade was not considered in the cost estimates quoted above.

Look at Greyback's estimate. Most of these items are already accounted for (except for air conditioning). As for the exterior, we can always hide the building behind wood slats (Trade and Convention Centre) or paint grapes on it (Visitors’ Information Centre).

Industry costs have escalated between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent per month, case in point, the new Pen High construction costs almost doubled from the estimated costs to the final accepted bid price. This is a matter of record.

This is an important point because it involves placing a bet on long-term real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) interest rates.

We all know from our mortgages that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar in the future. That is, if we borrow $1000 today we have to pay the bank back more than this (say $1060) in a year. However, what if, because of inflation, $1000 today buys us more than $1060 in a year? Then it would make sense for us to borrow like crazy and buy everything we want now because the increase in price over time is much larger than our borrowing costs during the same period.

The real interest rate is the nominal interest rate (the rate charged by the bank) less inflation. So, if my mortgage is at 6% and inflation is at 2%, then the real interest rate (the rate that matters) is 4%. However, what about the situation above? Say interest rates are at 6%, inflation in the economy as a whole is 2%, but inflation in non-residential construction is 10%. In this case, real interest rates for construction projects are actually negative (-4%). It makes sense to borrow and spend as long as the rate of inflation (in the relevant sector of the economy) outpaces interest rates.

The problem is, real interest rates in all parts of the economy are normally positive. Even if we consider only non-residential construction (which has experienced considerable inflation recently), the long-term trend is more variable (see graph below; click to enlarge). When you are financing a major project over 20 or 30 years, what is "normal" really matters. Betting that inflation is always going to be higher than interest rates is, from a historical point of view, a bit nutty.

I should add that to save just one of these two buildings as a stand-alone building, the cost would almost be the same estimated costs as saving both.

Yes, this is well established.

The estimated costs of maintaining and managing these two buildings was between $167,000 to $227,000 per year. The average bookings for the auditorium over the last few years were 37 per year. If the city were to be successful in booking the auditorium for 259 days for the next seven years (maximum estimated years before a new structure) and applying that against the estimated costs of taking over these buildings, that would mean that each booking would cost an average of $10,000. Is that a fiscally responsible cost to enter into until a new performing arts facility is built?

I have submitted a longer letter to the editor regarding this claim. As a general observation, this type of argument is very risky. The basic issue is the following: is $10,000 per event too much? What is the basis for comparison?

I took a quick look at the upcoming schedules for the “state of the art” performing arts facilities in Kelowna (326 seats) and Vernon (750 seats). I count 57 events in Kelowna and 39 in Vernon in the coming/past year.

Since our new performing arts facility will more attractive to both performers and spectators than the old Pen-Hi, we might reasonably assume that we will be able to stage more than 37 events in a year. Let’s assume we do better than both Kelowna and Vernon and stage 65 events per year in the new facility. Now let’s compare the cost per show of the new facility with that of the old Pen-Hi auditorium. In order to err on the conservative side, I have assumed a seven year life for the Pen-Hi auditorium (the mayor’s estimate) and a 50-year life/50-year bond for the new facility. For operating costs, I have assumed the lower end of the mayor’s scale ($167K) for the new facility and the upper end ($227K) for the drafty old Pen-Hi auditorium.

Oddly, I get different numbers than the mayor (see table below; click to enlarge). I used Excel and am pretty confident that I did not mess it up; perhaps he did not include the carrying cost of the debt. I calculate the cost of each performance over the seven year life of the Pen-Hi auditorium at $13,700. Interestingly, this is roughly the same as the cost per show over the 50 year life of the new facility. Both are significantly higher than the $10K that so outrages the mayor, so I am not sure what we should take away from all this. If $10K per show is too high, it is pretty clear that we should have no performing arts facility, old or new. I don’t think this was the point the mayor intended to make.

These estimated costs would mean a one per cent overall property tax increase for the renovation work and an annual one per cent tax increase for operation and maintenance costs — a total ongoing property tax increase of two per cent starting in 2008. Monies for the purchase of land for a Performing Arts Centre site would be taken out of the Capitol Reserve fund and therefore would not require a property tax increase.

So the capital reserve money is not tax money? Good to know.

Parking in and around Pen High has always been a problem for the city and property owners in that area have always put forward complaints of school vehicles blocking their driveways. Safety regarding the unloading of the students from school buses must be taken off Eckhardt Avenue where the new entrance will be, this is why the school board was insistent that the gym could not remain on the site.

Odd, the SONG plan makes use of some unused school district land on east of the gym/auditorium to provide more parking than what is in the current plan. I am assuming the mayor read this. Of course, this land could be sold and thus has an opportunity cost. But it has no immediate cash cost—it is school district land.

It was also found in the independent review that there are adequate facilities in the community to accommodate the arts and culture up until a new state of the art facility is constructed.

Obvious question: If the Pentecostal church is adequate for Community Concerts, why are we spending $10M of taxpayer’s money on a new performing arts facility? Are there no other priorities?

Plus, the construction of an indoor soccer facility funded and constructed by the soccer club will fill the void from losing the gym. This new structure will also free up space in the community centre gym.

According to information from Sandra Congram, adult recreational soccer uses the Community Centre gym once per week. I tried to confirm this, but in response to my request for gym usage information, I was told by city staff in an email: “Unfortunately, we do not publish the gym usage numbers and I am told that the use is quite variable from year to year.” In other words, Community Centre gym usage information is top secret.

The indoor soccer facility is a great idea precisely because it will be used for soccer. See the proposal.

Following this decision, city staff will be entering into discussions with the school board staff on joint use of all school gymnasiums including the new state of the art gym being built at Pen High. This maximizes the use of school board facilities, i.e. better use of school taxes and properties.

As stated elsewhere in this blog, the problem with elementary school gyms is not booking efficiency, the problem is that these little gyms are designed for llittle children. They are not great venues for adult recreational sports.

As for community use of the new Pen-Hi gym, the mayor is dreaming. See my previous posting on this topic. It even has video.

Based on the above assessment of upgrading these buildings, I believe this decision will encourage other levels of government to support the need of a new state of the art performing arts facility in Penticton equal to other communities in the valley.

Ah, the theory: destroy what we have and other levels of government will sweep in with money for a replacement. Permit me to doubt.

Michael Brydon: The Theory

In 2003, the City of Penticton was working hard to acquire funding for a new $30M events centre. Imagine if, at that time, civic leaders hatched a theory that involved knocking down Memorial Arena before any money for the new events centre had been raised. According to the theory, the federal and provincial governments would notice the resulting hole in the ground and make good on their responsibility to provide Penticton with a state-of-the-art hockey arena. People in the community might have objected that the theory was just that—a theory. They might have pointed to the risk of ending up with no facility and the on-going community benefits of keeping the old Memorial Arena, event after the events centre became a reality.

But imagine if proponents of the theory dismissed such concerns as negativity and sentimentalism for an obsolete and architecturally-unappealing structure. They could trot out a cost-benefit analysis that—if the salary costs of a planner in the city’s Parks and Recreation Department was creatively allocated—showed the operation costs of Memorial Arena to be very high. They could also argue (in clear contradiction of reports by city staff and well-known facts) that McLaren Arena was available most evenings for Penticton Vees hockey games and would be adequate until 2005 (2006 at the very latest), when the new events centre would surely be completed. They could congratulate themselves for their wisdom and financial prudence.

I am pretty sure that this theory applied to Memorial Arena in 2003 would have been laughed out of existence. But some proponents of a new performing arts facility, including Mayor Kimberley and Councilor McIvor, are true believers in a similar theory. They believe that, by knocking down our old 700-seat auditorium, they can increase the probability that the federal and provincial governments will fund two-thirds of a new 700-seat auditorium. Sounds promising, but there are some problems: First, the old auditorium does not need to be knocked down before funding is in place for a new performing arts facility. The buildings will not occupy the same piece of land and the $1.5M required to convert the old gym and auditorium is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of a new $30M (pre-overrun estimate) facility. Second, deliberately orchestrating our own facilities deficit puts local taxpayers on the hook for at least a third of the cost of the new facility. Perhaps the referendum for borrowing at least $10M should be held before the old auditorium is paved over. Third, the theory ignores the fact that senior levels of government have many responsibilities and interest (such as health care, greenhouse gas reduction, land claims, education, Olympics, wars, and so on) and that external funding for the new performing arts facility remains speculative. Finally, the theory ignores the potential community benefits of keeping the gym and the auditorium, even if a new facility it built.

Members of SONG (http://saveournorthgym.blogspot.com/) believe—and have always believed—that a new performing arts facility would benefit the city, especially if most of the funding is external. However, we also believe that the city has an unprecedented opportunity to acquire the Pen-Hi gym and auditorium at a bargain. Unfortunately, many city leaders are willing to forego the bargain in favor of theory—a theory that might not be nearly as clever as they imagine.