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
Monday, March 3, 2008
Friday, February 29, 2008
Michael Brydon: Analysis of the Pen-Hi Decision
I have taken some time to prepare a reasonably formal analysis of the Pen-Hi decision (see link to the right or click here). I will continue to update this document as new information becomes available.
The analysis contains new (as of late Feb 2008) information about the financing of the Vernon and District Performing Arts Centre and some preliminary funding results for proposed performing arts facilities in Burlington and London, Ontario. The basic conclusion of the analysis is what many of us have known intuitively since day one: The City's current course of action paints local taxpayers into a corner.
The experiences of other communities show us that a new performing arts facility in Penticton is going to require significant investment by local taxpayers. To this point, we have mostly been promised a "free" facility—a facility constructed using money from the provincial government, federal government, and volunteer contributions by individuals and organizations. Unfortunately, I can find no recent precedent for full external funding of a performing arts facility in Canada. Indeed, I have found several examples in which cities are on the hook for between 50% and 100% of the total cost of the facilities.
As a consequence of these findings, I have changed my mind on the South Okanagan Performing Arts Centre (SOPAC). Previously, I was in favor of moving forward with it—after all, who would not be in favor of a free performing arts facility? After looking at the numbers and considering the impact on local taxpayers (either increased taxes or decreased spending on other worthy projects), I have come to the conclusion that the SOPAC is little more than a dangerous distraction.
Of course, if the City puts a realistic referendum to the taxpayers of Penticton (of which I am not one; I live on the West Bench) and voters give council a mandate to invest in a performing arts facility, then what I think really does not matter. But I am pretty sure this council will not hold a referendum until they are forced to do so. By that point, the Pen-Hi buildings will be long gone and the choice will between an expensive new performing arts centre and no performing arts centre. Some choice.
The analysis contains new (as of late Feb 2008) information about the financing of the Vernon and District Performing Arts Centre and some preliminary funding results for proposed performing arts facilities in Burlington and London, Ontario. The basic conclusion of the analysis is what many of us have known intuitively since day one: The City's current course of action paints local taxpayers into a corner.
The experiences of other communities show us that a new performing arts facility in Penticton is going to require significant investment by local taxpayers. To this point, we have mostly been promised a "free" facility—a facility constructed using money from the provincial government, federal government, and volunteer contributions by individuals and organizations. Unfortunately, I can find no recent precedent for full external funding of a performing arts facility in Canada. Indeed, I have found several examples in which cities are on the hook for between 50% and 100% of the total cost of the facilities.
As a consequence of these findings, I have changed my mind on the South Okanagan Performing Arts Centre (SOPAC). Previously, I was in favor of moving forward with it—after all, who would not be in favor of a free performing arts facility? After looking at the numbers and considering the impact on local taxpayers (either increased taxes or decreased spending on other worthy projects), I have come to the conclusion that the SOPAC is little more than a dangerous distraction.
Of course, if the City puts a realistic referendum to the taxpayers of Penticton (of which I am not one; I live on the West Bench) and voters give council a mandate to invest in a performing arts facility, then what I think really does not matter. But I am pretty sure this council will not hold a referendum until they are forced to do so. By that point, the Pen-Hi buildings will be long gone and the choice will between an expensive new performing arts centre and no performing arts centre. Some choice.
Two schools of thought at odds over future of Pen High facilities
By Steve Kidd - Penticton Western News - February 29, 2008
There are two sides to every issue, and while School District 67 has solid arguments for proceeding with the demolition of the old auditorium at Penticton Secondary, another group is becoming increasingly vocal about their last-minute attempt to save the building.
Last week, city and school district representatives held a press conference to effectively announce that the time for any proposals to save the building was past. But the Penticton League of Electors said they aren’t finished yet, and suggest they may call a meeting of their own to rally public support.
And the newly formed league has some powerful, voices making the arguments for their position. Former Penticton mayor Dave Perry, former cabinet minister Tom Siddon and retired school district superintendent of facilities Ron Mason are all on the roster, and say the league is confident that given a stay of execution they can develop a proposal to save the buildings.
“I worked for the school district from 1973 until I retired in 1999, so I was very familiar with the buildings” said Mason. “We did quite a bit of work on establishing a plan to preserve them, because all the utilities are lost once the buildings (the rest of the school complex) are demolished.”
The school board did provide an opportunity for a group to come forward and save the buildings, but only the City of Penticton responded, and after consideration, declined. When their deadline — June 30, 2007 — passed, the school board went ahead developing their plans, making the site of the auditorium part of the parking lot.
The city did agree to take responsibility for redeveloping the Shatford Building, which will be developed into an arts centre with renovations beginning in 2009.
“If someone had come forward, you would see the auditorium on the plans today,” said Frank Regher, school district secretary-treasurer.
He said without an initiative from the community, the school board does not want to keep the buildings.
“They’re considered to have reached the end of their lives.”
There’s no dispute between the two sides that the demolition of the rest of the school buildings would require major changes to the gym and auditorium to make them into standalone units. Utilities, like a new heating plant and electrical services, would be required, as well as modifications to the fire sprinkler system. And along with the utilities, amenities like washrooms and a new entrance system would also be required.
All of these things, Mason said, have been figured into their plan, at an estimated cost of $1.2 million.
“There’s no contest on that, we know we can do it,” said Mason. “Our position is to preserve them as they are, until such time as there is funding in place to replace them.”
However, the City of Penticton, after studying the possibilities, decided not to take on the option of preserving the old buildings.
“With all the items done, it will still be an old structure with a limited life span,” said Mayor Jake Kimberly.
Instead the city went ahead with supporting the concept of developing a cultural corridor alongside Penticton Creek, with a new performing arts centre as the keystone.
But with the construction of the proposed performing arts centre years away, proponents of saving the buildings say they could continue to provide much-needed space, both for performances and indoor recreation activities.
“Does it make sense to wait for up to 10 years with nothing?” said Perry. “The cost of what they’re proposing for the performing arts centre is really prohibitive.”
However, both the city and the school district counter that no such pressing need exists, that the city and the schools have spaces that are under-utilized.
“Our resources are not used to the extent that they should be,” said Little, talking about school gym facilities. “When I consider that ... I don’t think there’s the great lack of gym space that has been made out.”
Kimberly also pointed out that when the Shatford Building is redeveloped as a community arts centre, Pen High’s original gym, inside that building, could be used as a small 250-seat performance space. Along with Cleland Theatre, he said, there should be sufficient performance space in the short term.
Parking is an issue of contention. The League of Electors argues that there is no need to convert the auditorium space into parking, suggesting that it would be more environmentally responsible to reduce parking as a way of encouraging more students to bus or walk to school.
The school district says good parking and access is necessary for the safety of the students and staff.
“The board is very concerned with traffic congestion and student safety,” said Little. “We do not want to see a repeat of the problem that exists at KVR (middle school) accessing the parking.”
Little said the board doesn’t disagree with the idea of being environmentally friendly, but questions the likelihood of getting students to walk to school.
“Parking is a reality,” he said. “Students will drive regardless.”
There are two sides to every issue, and while School District 67 has solid arguments for proceeding with the demolition of the old auditorium at Penticton Secondary, another group is becoming increasingly vocal about their last-minute attempt to save the building.
Last week, city and school district representatives held a press conference to effectively announce that the time for any proposals to save the building was past. But the Penticton League of Electors said they aren’t finished yet, and suggest they may call a meeting of their own to rally public support.
And the newly formed league has some powerful, voices making the arguments for their position. Former Penticton mayor Dave Perry, former cabinet minister Tom Siddon and retired school district superintendent of facilities Ron Mason are all on the roster, and say the league is confident that given a stay of execution they can develop a proposal to save the buildings.
“I worked for the school district from 1973 until I retired in 1999, so I was very familiar with the buildings” said Mason. “We did quite a bit of work on establishing a plan to preserve them, because all the utilities are lost once the buildings (the rest of the school complex) are demolished.”
The school board did provide an opportunity for a group to come forward and save the buildings, but only the City of Penticton responded, and after consideration, declined. When their deadline — June 30, 2007 — passed, the school board went ahead developing their plans, making the site of the auditorium part of the parking lot.
The city did agree to take responsibility for redeveloping the Shatford Building, which will be developed into an arts centre with renovations beginning in 2009.
“If someone had come forward, you would see the auditorium on the plans today,” said Frank Regher, school district secretary-treasurer.
He said without an initiative from the community, the school board does not want to keep the buildings.
“They’re considered to have reached the end of their lives.”
There’s no dispute between the two sides that the demolition of the rest of the school buildings would require major changes to the gym and auditorium to make them into standalone units. Utilities, like a new heating plant and electrical services, would be required, as well as modifications to the fire sprinkler system. And along with the utilities, amenities like washrooms and a new entrance system would also be required.
All of these things, Mason said, have been figured into their plan, at an estimated cost of $1.2 million.
“There’s no contest on that, we know we can do it,” said Mason. “Our position is to preserve them as they are, until such time as there is funding in place to replace them.”
However, the City of Penticton, after studying the possibilities, decided not to take on the option of preserving the old buildings.
“With all the items done, it will still be an old structure with a limited life span,” said Mayor Jake Kimberly.
Instead the city went ahead with supporting the concept of developing a cultural corridor alongside Penticton Creek, with a new performing arts centre as the keystone.
But with the construction of the proposed performing arts centre years away, proponents of saving the buildings say they could continue to provide much-needed space, both for performances and indoor recreation activities.
“Does it make sense to wait for up to 10 years with nothing?” said Perry. “The cost of what they’re proposing for the performing arts centre is really prohibitive.”
However, both the city and the school district counter that no such pressing need exists, that the city and the schools have spaces that are under-utilized.
“Our resources are not used to the extent that they should be,” said Little, talking about school gym facilities. “When I consider that ... I don’t think there’s the great lack of gym space that has been made out.”
Kimberly also pointed out that when the Shatford Building is redeveloped as a community arts centre, Pen High’s original gym, inside that building, could be used as a small 250-seat performance space. Along with Cleland Theatre, he said, there should be sufficient performance space in the short term.
Parking is an issue of contention. The League of Electors argues that there is no need to convert the auditorium space into parking, suggesting that it would be more environmentally responsible to reduce parking as a way of encouraging more students to bus or walk to school.
The school district says good parking and access is necessary for the safety of the students and staff.
“The board is very concerned with traffic congestion and student safety,” said Little. “We do not want to see a repeat of the problem that exists at KVR (middle school) accessing the parking.”
Little said the board doesn’t disagree with the idea of being environmentally friendly, but questions the likelihood of getting students to walk to school.
“Parking is a reality,” he said. “Students will drive regardless.”
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.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Former MP joins chorus calling for auditorium’s preservation
The following story by Wolf Depner appeared in the Penticton Western News, December 12, 2007
A former area MP has lent his voice in favour of saving a local auditorium.
Tom Siddon, a former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister, wants the city and the local school board to stop the pending demolition of the Pen Hi auditorium.
“It makes no sense to tear down a perfectly good and much beloved auditorium, when no one in this community has a clue how we are ever going to pay for its replacement,” said Siddon in an open letter to council.
Both the city and school board already announced that they will not preserve the venerable but aging facility as part of current efforts to rebuild Pen Hi, citing financial limitations. The city has also moved forward with plans for a stand-alone performing arts facility on Ellis Street.
But Siddon questioned this.
“In these emerging times, when sustainability is increasingly important, we are so often reminded to reduce, to reuse and to recycle,” he said.
“Why therefore would we choose to develop and pave over a new smaller site, sandwiched between the canal and Ellis Street, with all of its consequent new challenges of construction and servicing cost, parking limitations and traffic congestion? And why build a new theatre in an auto-dependent location when the present site is more central and easier to access even when walking, or by public transit?”
Siddon said saving the existing auditorium would actually benefit the community more than building a new structure as he outlined his proposal to remodel the auditorium.
Building from the “inside-out” on the existing theatre site, the theatre could be expanded and modernized into a new complex, he said.
With elections coming, both the provincial and the federal government should certainly be prepared to fund the restoration and expansion of the theatre, said Siddon.
This would cost considerably less than the estimated $40 million needed for a new theatre on Ellis Street, he said.
The Penticton Western News could not independently confirm this claim. Members of the local arts community have also argued for years that the auditorium no longer meets their needs.
But Siddon’s position is far from exclusive and he is perhaps the most prominent speaker in favour of preserving the auditorium. Earlier this year, the six living former mayors of Penticton joined forces in trying to save auditorium and the Pen Hi gym from the wrecking ball.
“We ... object to the destruction of useful community assets without replacements in place,” the mayors said in a prepared statement.
The group of former mayors have also received support from a group of concerned citizens calling itself Save Our North Gym and Auditorium.
“Penticton needs these facilities,” the group said in a presentation to local school board officials this year. “It is wasteful to tear down what is badly needed in the community and which, for economic reasons, cannot be replaced in the near future.”
A former area MP has lent his voice in favour of saving a local auditorium.
Tom Siddon, a former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister, wants the city and the local school board to stop the pending demolition of the Pen Hi auditorium.
“It makes no sense to tear down a perfectly good and much beloved auditorium, when no one in this community has a clue how we are ever going to pay for its replacement,” said Siddon in an open letter to council.
Both the city and school board already announced that they will not preserve the venerable but aging facility as part of current efforts to rebuild Pen Hi, citing financial limitations. The city has also moved forward with plans for a stand-alone performing arts facility on Ellis Street.
But Siddon questioned this.
“In these emerging times, when sustainability is increasingly important, we are so often reminded to reduce, to reuse and to recycle,” he said.
“Why therefore would we choose to develop and pave over a new smaller site, sandwiched between the canal and Ellis Street, with all of its consequent new challenges of construction and servicing cost, parking limitations and traffic congestion? And why build a new theatre in an auto-dependent location when the present site is more central and easier to access even when walking, or by public transit?”
Siddon said saving the existing auditorium would actually benefit the community more than building a new structure as he outlined his proposal to remodel the auditorium.
Building from the “inside-out” on the existing theatre site, the theatre could be expanded and modernized into a new complex, he said.
With elections coming, both the provincial and the federal government should certainly be prepared to fund the restoration and expansion of the theatre, said Siddon.
This would cost considerably less than the estimated $40 million needed for a new theatre on Ellis Street, he said.
The Penticton Western News could not independently confirm this claim. Members of the local arts community have also argued for years that the auditorium no longer meets their needs.
But Siddon’s position is far from exclusive and he is perhaps the most prominent speaker in favour of preserving the auditorium. Earlier this year, the six living former mayors of Penticton joined forces in trying to save auditorium and the Pen Hi gym from the wrecking ball.
“We ... object to the destruction of useful community assets without replacements in place,” the mayors said in a prepared statement.
The group of former mayors have also received support from a group of concerned citizens calling itself Save Our North Gym and Auditorium.
“Penticton needs these facilities,” the group said in a presentation to local school board officials this year. “It is wasteful to tear down what is badly needed in the community and which, for economic reasons, cannot be replaced in the near future.”
Friday, December 7, 2007
Michael Brydon: Time to reassess?
The following was submitted as a letter to the Herald:
I am often asked what became of the Save Our North Gym movement. Recall that just over six months ago, Penticton city council—aided and abetted by the board of School District 67—rejected the SONG proposal to acquire the Pen-Hi north gym and auditorium for community use. Accordingly, the two buildings will be demolished and replaced with a parking lot in the spring of 2008. Shortly following council’s decision, six former mayors of Penticton (including a former provincial cabinet minister) assembled to voice the opinion that the city had made a mistake in its decision. However, rather than reassess, council seemed content to dismiss the advice and argue that the former mayors did not have “the full facts”. This was a curious rebuttal given that several of the most important facts presented by council members in their June 4th deliberations on the proposal are verifiably wrong. For example, a primary justification offered by council for not acquiring the gym was the assertion that the new-and-improved Pen-Hi gym (currently under construction) will be available during cold winter evenings for adult recreational uses, such as community volleyball, basketball, archery and badminton. Mayor Kimberley was especially adamant on this point. However, a quick glance at the high school gym schedules shows that Pen-Hi and Maggie student teams not only monopolize their own gyms during most of the academic year, but also make liberal use of the adjacent middle school gyms. Curiously, the city’s Director of Special Projects made precisely this point during his presentation to council, noting that “the high schools are normally fully used—they are tough to get in to”. But for some reason, this seemed not to register.
As for the auditorium, the primary justification for knocking it down was the assertion that the old 700 seat facility would soon be made obsolete by the proposed $30M, 700 seat South Okanagan Performing Arts Centre (as distinct from the South Okanagan Events Centre, which is currently under construction at Queen’s Park). There was even a lively debate during the June 4th deliberations about whether the new performing arts facility would be completed in 24 or 36 months. As a Herald editorial noted at the time, these estimates seemed a tad optimistic. With every passing month, they seem increasingly delusional. The city granted the Penticton and District Performing Arts Facilities Society a $2.5M parcel of land along Ellis Street in July to kick-start the fundraising for the project. However, in the same breath, the city publicly declined to contribute further to the facility’s capital budget. Thus, in the first six months of a 36-month project, the only major funding announcement that I am aware of has been a negative one. Now let’s be clear and emphatic: The point here is not to criticize those who are volunteering their time to raise $30M and make the new performing arts facility a reality. Many in the community recognize the challenges involved in an undertaking of this scale and applaud those doing the heavy lifting. Instead, the point here is to question the judgment of politicians who act as if the new facility were a done deal. The point is to inquire about the legitimacy of a multi-million dollar decision made on the basis of misapprehended facts and absurdly overconfident assessments of highly uncertain events.
So, with only a few months remaining before bulldozers flatten two valuable buildings, it seems like a good time to ask some questions: What if the six former mayors were right and our current council made a bad decision? What if the (now) 18-30-month window to find money for and build a new $30M performing arts facility seems less realistic than it did six months ago? Should we expect the members of council to reassess their positions? And, if they do reassess, should we expect them to do so while the Pen-Hi buildings are still standing?
I am often asked what became of the Save Our North Gym movement. Recall that just over six months ago, Penticton city council—aided and abetted by the board of School District 67—rejected the SONG proposal to acquire the Pen-Hi north gym and auditorium for community use. Accordingly, the two buildings will be demolished and replaced with a parking lot in the spring of 2008. Shortly following council’s decision, six former mayors of Penticton (including a former provincial cabinet minister) assembled to voice the opinion that the city had made a mistake in its decision. However, rather than reassess, council seemed content to dismiss the advice and argue that the former mayors did not have “the full facts”. This was a curious rebuttal given that several of the most important facts presented by council members in their June 4th deliberations on the proposal are verifiably wrong. For example, a primary justification offered by council for not acquiring the gym was the assertion that the new-and-improved Pen-Hi gym (currently under construction) will be available during cold winter evenings for adult recreational uses, such as community volleyball, basketball, archery and badminton. Mayor Kimberley was especially adamant on this point. However, a quick glance at the high school gym schedules shows that Pen-Hi and Maggie student teams not only monopolize their own gyms during most of the academic year, but also make liberal use of the adjacent middle school gyms. Curiously, the city’s Director of Special Projects made precisely this point during his presentation to council, noting that “the high schools are normally fully used—they are tough to get in to”. But for some reason, this seemed not to register.
As for the auditorium, the primary justification for knocking it down was the assertion that the old 700 seat facility would soon be made obsolete by the proposed $30M, 700 seat South Okanagan Performing Arts Centre (as distinct from the South Okanagan Events Centre, which is currently under construction at Queen’s Park). There was even a lively debate during the June 4th deliberations about whether the new performing arts facility would be completed in 24 or 36 months. As a Herald editorial noted at the time, these estimates seemed a tad optimistic. With every passing month, they seem increasingly delusional. The city granted the Penticton and District Performing Arts Facilities Society a $2.5M parcel of land along Ellis Street in July to kick-start the fundraising for the project. However, in the same breath, the city publicly declined to contribute further to the facility’s capital budget. Thus, in the first six months of a 36-month project, the only major funding announcement that I am aware of has been a negative one. Now let’s be clear and emphatic: The point here is not to criticize those who are volunteering their time to raise $30M and make the new performing arts facility a reality. Many in the community recognize the challenges involved in an undertaking of this scale and applaud those doing the heavy lifting. Instead, the point here is to question the judgment of politicians who act as if the new facility were a done deal. The point is to inquire about the legitimacy of a multi-million dollar decision made on the basis of misapprehended facts and absurdly overconfident assessments of highly uncertain events.
So, with only a few months remaining before bulldozers flatten two valuable buildings, it seems like a good time to ask some questions: What if the six former mayors were right and our current council made a bad decision? What if the (now) 18-30-month window to find money for and build a new $30M performing arts facility seems less realistic than it did six months ago? Should we expect the members of council to reassess their positions? And, if they do reassess, should we expect them to do so while the Pen-Hi buildings are still standing?
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?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)