Michael Brydon: Response to Ben Amos' letter

In an op-ed piece in the June 20th, 2007, edition of The Herald, Ben Amos criticized the letter in which I concluded that funding for the proposed $30M performing arts facility would be difficult to raise. Just to clarify: the point of my letter was not to disparage the folks who have invested time and effort into the proposal. On the contrary, the consensus within SONG is, and always has been, that a new performing arts facility would be beneficial to the city. What we do not understand is why local politicians and (surprisingly) the leadership of the performing arts facility society are so keen to knock down the old auditorium before raising the first dollar for its replacement. It is not like the old has to cleared to make room for the new (the Pen-Hi auditorium is on Eckhardt; the proposed facility will be downtown). Nor is it true that cost of retaining the Pen-Hi auditorium and gym somehow jeopardizes the new facility—it is a trivial amount compared to $30M. If proponents of the new facility are willing to take outrageous risks in order raise $1.2M-$1.5M, then they are in worse shape than we thought.

The point of this posting is to address some of Mr. Amos' criticisms head on. I have no intention of responding in The Herald because it is difficult to rebut sarcasm and name-calling with anything but more of the same. As my wife points out, the result would be be... unseemly. So I will respond to Mr. Amos in this less public venue....

Arts spending about more than just political expediency

It is unfortunate we have among us people who are unable to articulate any thing other than negativity.

Yes, but for the record, I was also called "negative" when I predicted that the SOEC would cost taxpayers money back when the quoted price was still just $30M (see my blog posting).

One recent letter-writer chose to advise us on all his perceived reasons why something might or might not happen and even has the audacity to forwarn us he will let us know where proponents of a new performing arts facility are both "confident and wrong".

Actually, I did not say all proponents of the new facility, I said some (by which I mostly meant Mayor Kimberley). The mayor's factual errors are a matter of public record (see the posting below). We even have video. Decide for yourself whether the evidence is audacious.

It makes one breathless with anticipation.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm. I will assume it is not.

It may be that the strategy is meant to generate and even exacerbate any potential divisions of opinion in the city.

Potential divisions of opinion? How about actual and substantive divisions of opinion? According to the western intellectual tradition, such differences should be resolved through a process of debate or, more gratuitously, the Hegelian dialectic. Certain politicians in the community have stated a thesis (funding for the new facility is just around the corner). I have countered with an antithesis (acquiring funding is going to be difficult). So far, so good. Now, we are supposed to resolve our differences through a rational consideration of the facts. Dismissing my objections as mere pessimism is not a synthesis; it is the suppression of debate.

It is my understanding, following discussions early on with a proponent of saving the the Penticton Secondary Gym gymnasium, the Save the Gym group was originally formed to do just that—lobby to save the gym.

Um, had Mr. Amos bothered to check this website, he would have known that our mandate is, and always has been to save both buildings. Saving one and not the other makes little sense, as discussed in our FAQ. Even so, I am not sure what the point is here.

Yet the school board has never considered the gym as a retention option.

We have tended to dismiss the school board's view on this matter for one simple reason: According to a survey conducted by city staff, 60% of taxpayers in the city think it makes sense for the city to save both buildings (from Barry Reid's presentation during the June 4th, 2007, morning council meeting). In a democracy, what the people think is more important than what their elected officials think.

We now know the two facilities (gym and auditorium) are virtually inseparable. The "Save the Gym" group would now have us believe it is the auditorium that is the principle driver.

Um, no. First of all, we "now know" the gym and auditorium are inseparable because Larry Kenyon (President of Greyback Construction, professional engineer, and SONG member) told us so after analyzing the salvage options. Second, Mr. Amos' chronology is wrong—a fact easily verified by the time-stamped materials on this site and in the local newspapers. SONG has always had members of the performing arts community among its ranks and has always recognized the importance to the community of the Pen-Hi auditorium.

The group finds itself in the strange position of criticizing the city over a decision not to expend funds on what would have been open-ended expenditures for costly renovations on an obsolete structure that the school board does not want...

Many adjectives here: open-ended, costly, obsolete. First, Mr. Amos' financial assertions are not supported with any data. In contrast, the $1.2M-$1.5M estimate for saving the gym and auditorium has been reviewed by city staff and verified by a professional third-party quantity surveyor hired by the city. Second, it seems a bit rich for a proponent of a $30M (unverified) project to call a $1.5M project costly. Obsolete is, of course, a more subjective measure. All we can do is weight Mr. Amos' conclusions against those of the many performers and audience members who have spoke out in favor of the Pen-Hi auditorium.

...—in fact, wants it out of the way of its new development.

To be more precise, the school board wants the two buildings out of the way of its new parking lot (and bus loop, though why the buses do not unload on Jermyn—where the new school will be—is unknown to me).

The other cynical thesis put forward was that funding from senior levels of government is purely a matter of political expediency.

Mr. Amos is right about this—it is cynical. But that does not mean it is wrong. The reader will have to draw on his/her own experience with the political process to come to a conclusion.

All levels of government have a responsibility and interest in re-investing our tax dollars in the arts for the benefit of all.

Nicely put, and true. But this strikes me as hopelessly naive. Governments also have a responsibility to provide health care, fight wars, host Olympics, reduce greenhouse gases, fund education, resolve land claims, and on and on. Since the costs of these responsibilities far exceed the money available, Mr. Amos' argument does not really say anything; it is an empty platitude with no predictive ability whatsoever. Indeed, I am more than a little worried that this is the extent of their reasoning on the issue. Put it this way: they better have something better—a secret deal or backroom assurance of funding—or they are going to have some explaining to do to my kids.

The Penticton and District Performing Arts Facilities Society has always been positive in addressing Penticton's need for the state-of-the-art facility.

Good, but the problem is not PDPAFS's lack of positive energy; it is their lack of $30M.

They have consciously stayed away from the nostalgia-driven efforts to maintain and outdated structure.

They have done more than stay away. In the June 4, 2007, city council meeting, PDPAFS chair Don Grant recommend that the Pen-Hi auditorium be demolished. This recommendation which, as noted above, has no impact on PDPAFS's plans, adversely impacts the gym. Mr. Grant launched an unnecessary attack on SONG's interests in order to further (however marginally) the interests of PDPAFS. Hardly heroic.

As for "nostalgia-driven", Mr. Amos is guilty of putting his words into SONG's mouth. Had he taken the time to read the material on our site, he would have found exactly zero instances of "a wistful or excessively sentimental yearning for return to or of some past period or irrecoverable condition" (Webster). It is true that many SONG members have a sentimental attachment to their tax dollars, but this is a different matter.

Our city has a population of approximately 34,000 and the region it serves is close to 100,000. In addition, tourism adds to its population base in the summer months.

Sure.

The population is growing, with most new residents in the 45-65 group of above-average income, coming from other major centres of Canada,...

In fact, Penticton's population growth is below the provincial average (see the latest census data). But this slow growth is probably due to substitution (young and poor for older and richer), so Mr. Amos' observation is likely correct in spirit.

...often with high expectations for access to the performing arts.

And they are going to be some choked when they discover that we knocked over our best auditorium without bothering to get a firm commitment to fund a new one.

Cities across Canada and around the world are realizing the arts in general, performing arts in particular, are one of the keys to the new urban economy...

I must have missed the memo on this. Plus, I don't believe there are many who retire to Penticton in order to partake in the urban economy. Mr. Amos, for example, owns a vineyard—what could be less urban?

They fuel creativity which is key to economic growth.

This is a pretty broad assertion. When I look around Vancouver, I see plenty of cranes working on public infrastructure. But they are not building facilities for the the performing arts; they are building university facilities (UBC and SFU) and research hospitals (Abbotsford). I teach in a business school and I have to acknowledge my failure to see dance and theatre as the key to our future economic development. Indeed, I would argue that the whole point of economic development is to create wealth and leisure so that we, as a society, have opportunities to participate in the arts. That is, the arts should exist for their own sake, not as a means to material accumulation.

A new performing arts facility in our downtown core would be the centre-point for an emergent downtown cultural district and a great asset for our businesses.

Hmm, a theatre and a Starbucks does not a cultural district make. Wait, don't tell me: Theatre-goers are going to grab dinner first and drinks after and the benefits for the local economy are going to be huge! The problem is that this reasoning is known to be flawed. We are talking here about discretionary spending. The money could have just as easily been spent on dinner, drinks, and a substitute (e.g., hockey game) if the theatre was unavailable. There is no growth in this type of spending, just an alternative allocation of money to competing uses. Again, it is a bad sign when efforts are made to justify the arts in terms of return on investment.

There are those who would espouse a moratorium on all things, no matter how beneficial, because of the construction of the South Okanagan Events Centre.

Yes, these people are known as "accountants".

This is unreasonable and unnecessarily-angst ridden. A manageable city debt is a fact of life.

To have any meaning at all, Mr. Amos would have to define what he means by "manageable". In addition, he has no idea what the SOEC is going to costs—no one does. But a few paragraphs back, he was deploring "open-ended expenditures for costly renovations". Now, money is no object, as long as we get to see "The Producers".

It will take some time to raise funds and to construct an arts facility we will all be proud of.

Mr. Amos needs to talk to Messers McIvor and Grant. They estimated 24-36 months to completion during the June 4, 2007, city council meeting. If it does take longer, as Mr. Amos seems to be implying, perhaps we can gather around a scaled down production of "The Producers" in Pen-Hi's ample parking lot.

We should move ahead now. Rather than criticize those with passion and foresight and the persistence to to keep on with the task, we should positively applaud their efforts...

And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day. (HenryV, IV, iii)

In keeping with an apparent need for cliches—don't throw good money after bad.

Hmm, I think this makes more sense when a bad investment has been made and more money is required to prop it up, resulting in further losses. But both the Pen-Hi gym and auditorium have proved themselves to be workhorses. Everyone—with the exception of a few who seem maniacally obsessed with razing them from the earth in the belief that doing so will somehow help them raise $30M—says nice things about these buildings.

So what do I conclude from Mr. Amos' letter? Despite Mr. Amos' name-calling, sarcasm, and platitudes, he has failed to address the big question that I hear both inside and outside of SONG meetings: Why are we knocking down the Pen-Hi auditorium before we know whether we can build a new facility? And if we do knock it down, what happens if PDPAFS comes up short? Blame is like a plane: it has to land somewhere.

Michael Brydon: Why Mayor Kimberley is wrong

I stated in recent letter that the City of Penticton's decision to decline the opportunity to acquire the Pen-Hi gym and auditorium is incoherent. I understand that the decision has already been made and I should get on with my life. But it is important to recognize that the mayor did not permit public response to council's arguments during the debate on the issue. As a result, a lot of nonsense went unchallenged and some of us now feel compelled to conduct a kind of postmortem debate in the opinion pages of the local paper.

If you watch the archived recording of the gym/auditorium deliberations, you will see that there is much that begs for rebuttal. However, given space constraints, I will concentrate on the three key elements of Mayor Kimberley's argument for demolishing the buildings: A lack of parking for auditorium events, the availability of a newer, state-of-the art high school gym for community use, and uncertainty regarding the cost of converting the buildings for community use. As a general observation, the mayor's arguments suffer from two shortcomings. First, in each case, his facts are exactly wrong. Second, he fails to apply the same critical logic to his preferred alternative (immediate construction of a new $30M performing arts centre). Let's review the details:

Parking: Following a presentation by Dr. Sandra Congram, a spokesperson for Save Our North Gym (SONG), Mayor Kimberley asked if SONG's proposal addressed the parking issues that would arise when events held in the gym/auditorium coincided with regular school activities. This question is so comprehensively clueless that, when I heard it, I had a moment of self-doubt and actually checked the Internet for theatre schedules. Of course, I discovered what I already knew—what everyone knows—that theatre events are rarely (if ever?) scheduled during school hours. For example, the Sunshine Theatre series in Kelowna starts at 8:00 PM on evenings and matinees run only on Saturdays. Thus, rather than posing a parking problem, the Pen-Hi auditorium exists in almost perfect parking symbiosis with the school: when school is out, its hundreds of parking spaces can be used by theatre patrons. A downtown performing arts facility, in contrast, does pose major parking challenges, especially if, as the mayor suggests, dozens of condominiums are stacked on top of the facility to help defray its costs. Surprisingly the mayor's parking concerns were not challenged by anyone, including other members of council or even a local press outlet, which dutifuly opined that the Pen-Hi auditorium poses intractable parking problems. As for gym activities during the school day, these are equally unlikely. The whole point of saving the gym as a community resource is so that it may be used after school and after work.

Community use of the new Pen-Hi gym: In dismissing the need to save the Pen-Hi gym, Mayor Kimberley asserted that the new gym currently under construction for Pen-Hi will be available for community use (thereby negating the need for the older structure). In reality, high school gyms in Penticton are rarely available for community use because high school teams monopolize their gyms for most of the year. Dr. Congram explained this to the mayor and the city's Director of Special Projects, Barry Reid had, in his presentation just moments before, said the following: "The high school gyms are normally fully used; it is tough to get into them." (A video summary of this exchange can be found on YouTube) The mayor's certainty caused in me another moment of self-doubt, so I checked with both Maggie and Pen-Hi and discovered what I already knew: the high school gyms are booked solid during much of the year. Moreover, both high schools also make liberal use of the adjacent middle school gyms (copies of the gym schedules for both high schools have been posted on the SONG website). Although Mr. Reid acknowledged that the city faces a shortage of prime-time gym space for community groups, the city's position is that we can make do with our many empty elementary school gyms. Again, there is a logical inconsistency: the mayor advocates demolition of the Pen-Hi auditorium because it lacks a pleasing spot in which to have a glass of wine during intermission. However, citizens of less refined tastes—such as members of the 25 or so teams in this city who play adult recreational volleyball four nights a week for most of the year—are asked to make do with tiny elementary school gyms with dusty floors, low ceilings, and no space for warming up or spectators.

Cost uncertainty: The cost projections presented by SONG were developed by Greyback Construction at no cost to the city. The projections were then reviewed by city staff and verified by an independent quantity surveyor. Despite the time, effort, and cost expended on developing and verifying these estimates, Mayor Kimberley decided that the $1.2M-$1.5M estimate was too low. Councilor Litke concurred, based on his experience with used cars. Even if Messers Kimberley and Litke know something that construction professionals do not, which is unlikely, the same logic must then be applied to the new performing arts facility. If the city cannot afford cost inflation on a project with a base price of $1.5M, how can it then recommend an alternative with a base price of $30M?

The net result of the mayor's factual contortions and inconsistent logic is that people actually believe him when he says that it makes more sense to chase a $30M facility than make do with what we have until we resolve some of the uncertainty regarding funding (and demand) for the new performing arts facility. At the very least, the city should mothball the gym and auditorium until they have the $30M in hand. Alas, a clique of local politicians has apparently hatched a clever plan that requires expeditious demolition of the Pen-Hi auditorium (the Pen-Hi gym being mere collateral damage in all this). But that is a topic for a future letter...

Michael Brydon: "Get on with it" or "look before you leap"

A slightly edited version of the following letter appeared in the June 14, 2007 edition of the Herald:

I have advocated converting the Pen-Hi gym and auditorium into community use facilities so I was disappointed when I heard of city council’s decision not pursue the opportunity. I could not attend the council meeting at which the decision was made due to travel, but I assumed that the outcome was the result of sound judgment and careful consideration of the facts. I was ready to admit that we had lost the battle and relieved to be done with the whole matter. But then I watched the archived video of council’s June 4th deliberations. The question I am now asking is whether a decision based on transparently shaky logic and a sometimes comical misapprehension of the facts actually resolves anything? The more I review the arguments used to justify the demolition of the gym and auditorium, the more I am convinced that council’s decision is not merely bad, it is incoherent. My objective in writing this letter (and any sequels) is to convince anyone who will listen that something is broken.

The gym/auditorium issue has many facets, but the most important justification for demolishing the buildings is that the city will soon have a new performing arts facility. Little information about the proposed facility has been made public (despite the fact that will be paid for with taxpayers’ money) but the basic idea is that it will cost roughly $30M and require funding from federal, provincial, municipal, and perhaps even private sources. Proponents of the facility and several members of council, including the mayor, are confident that the funding will be in place and the curtain will rise in the new facility within 24-36 months. But, given that some of these folks have already demonstrated the ability to be both confident and wrong at the same time (more about this in a future letter), it is worth drawing our own conclusions about the inevitability of funding. Let’s consider the potential sources:

• Federal: Conservatives have a doctrinal aversion to spending taxpayers' money on the arts. However, given their minority status, the Conservatives might be willing to fund some projects in an attempt to secure a majority. The problem is that Stockwell Day received more votes than the other three candidates combined in the 2006 election and has since been promoted to cabinet. His seat is one of the safest in Canada. Why then would scarce federal funding come here when it can be used in Ontario or Quebec to make a difference?
• Provincial: Messers Barisoff and Thorpe can join Mr. Day in the Safe Seat Club, having already delivered a whopping $50M contribution to the SOEC. So why would the provincial Liberals, who are facing increasing financial pressure from Olympic overruns, set an unsustainable precedent by giving a small city in a safe riding even more money?
• Municipal: Proponents of a new performing arts facility like to point to a series of studies and plans commissioned over the last couple of decades. Unfortunately, those documents became ancient history the moment the city agreed to underwrite the $17M cost overrun of the SOEC. In addition, new surprises might be in store once the SOEC is complete. Although a real business plan for the SOEC was never made public, it is clear the city expects the facility to turn a profit. But as communities such as Cranbrook and Youngstown, OH, have discovered, the revenue projections used to justify the construction of such facilities may bear little relation to actual revenues. Under the terms of its contract with its private sector partner, the City of Penticton bears almost all of the risk of operating losses, which may be significant. Making commitments to other major capital projects before the city’s true liabilities can be estimated with any precision strikes me as reckless.
• Private investors: Both Mayor Kimberley and Larry Little, the chair of School District 67, have argued in favor of the destruction of Pen-Hi’s auditorium by pointing out that building is seldom used. Others have responded that the district’s restrictive booking policies (e.g., no setup until the end of the school day) are the culprit and that events would be easier to book if the auditorium were under community control. Either way, an unused auditorium is hardly a ringing endorsement of the financial viability of an expensive replacement. More recently, the mayor has floated the possibility of using condominium development to cross-subsidize the provision of a new performing arts facility. No information on this idea has been forthcoming so it is hard to comment on its merits. However, given the city’s lack of success in getting developers to do simple things, like build on the vacant Three Gables site or invest in a supermarket in the downtown core, it is not clear how the city is going to convince a developer to underwrite an expensive money-losing auditorium.

Given this political and financial calculus, I would put the probability of raising $30M in the next 36 months somewhere between bleak and dismal. At the very least, we should acknowledge that the city is making important irreversible decisions in the face of massive uncertainty. Fortunately, much of this uncertainty can be reduced at low cost. Since the performing arts facility society insists that it cannot raise money until it owns land, the city’s first priority should be to acquire this land. This way, we can see whether all the happy talk about funding has any basis in fact. Naturally, the land could revert to the city if the fundraising fell short, making the transaction essentially risk-free for the city.

Unfortunately, the city has confused knocking over its backup facility (“Getting on with it”, seems to be the dominant slogan) and rational first steps. The prevailing theory seems to be that the $1.5M required to save the gym and auditorium should be spent to buy the land for the new performing arts facility. But $1.5M (which also buys us a large, much needed gymnasium) is a mere 5% of the cost of a new facility. It is like council saying it cannot afford travel insurance because it needs the money for airfare. My response is that, if it cannot afford insurance, it should not be traveling at all. Unfortunately, most councilors are unmoved by risk mitigation strategies or conventional logic. Instead, they seem to be most interested in facile slogans. As a conclusion then, let me offer some proven winners: Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Look before you leap.

Dodi Morrison: Decision divides community

The following appeared in the Western News on June 8, 2007:

This week Penticton city council decided to tear down Pen High auditorium and the attached gym. This was in spite of a very well-delivered and sensible presentation telling of all the uses that could be found for this quite newly renovated structure (that is, the gym). I was urged to attend the meeting but had the impression that we had till the end of June to come up with a plan and even thought one was almost in place — for the auditorium. I wished to speak, but apparently there was no time.

Why is the auditorium considered so old? The three schools I attended in Vancouver, which are far older, are still going strong with a little tweaking here and there. Our solidly built auditorium stands on cement and only the wood structure of the stage needs replacing. That could be done, I am told by reliable builders, for only $2-3 million, including dressing rooms, bathrooms and an entrance. That is a sum our small city could handle. Not that I would not enjoy a new venue with all the bells and whistles. But we have enough debt now, with the event centre and all the infrastructure caused by the many new buildings in town. Only the elite seem to want new taxes.

Monday night I sat beside a woman who lives in White Rock, hardly an impoverished B.C. town. She voluntarily admired the structure of our auditorium “I wish we had this in White Rock. It’s beautiful!” Then there are the artists who praise its acoustics — but those aren’t supposed to matter any more, I gather.

What a sad day. And what a divided town — divided unnecessarily.

News: Free rec passes make teens more active

When 2,500 Grade 5 students in Kingston and surrounding townships were given free one-year passes, nearly three-quarters of them took advantage of the passes to increase their physical activity, according to an evaluation conducted by Queen's University researchers.

See the full story" http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=9cda755c-945e-4d70-9a5f-ae02f2537c1b

Michael Brydon: Comments on the city's decision

The following rant is too long to be sent to the Herald as a letter. I will try, at time permits, to get shorter versions published in the Herald as letters to the editor.

Bismark is often quoted as saying, “Laws are like sausages; it is better not to see them being made.” Foolishly ignoring this advice, I just watched a recording of the recent city council meeting in which the city declined to acquire the current Pen-Hi gym and auditorium for community use. Naturally, like many other people in the community who have advocated saving both facilities, I am disappointed by council’s decision. Not so disappointed that I am going to chain myself to a bulldozer on demolition day (though we still may be able to convince Fred Fedorak to do this), but disappointed enough to comment on the decision process captured by the video camera.

The meeting started with a presentation by city staff (Barry Reid, the city’s Director of Special Projects) on the costs and benefits of saving the two facilities. I thought this presentation and accompanying memo were well done, although I have two quibbles. First, for consistency, the operational costs of the auditorium should have been left out of the analysis since any facility—new or old—involves ongoing operation costs. The inclusion of the payroll cost of a new arts coordinator in the estimate was especially misleading since the city will likely fill this position regardless of what happens to the Pen-Hi buildings. A second quibble is that Mr. Reid’s “cost-benefit analysis” actually said nothing about the benefits to the community of saving the auditorium and gym. This is understandable since the benefits of such facilities (culture, fitness, programs for youth) are diffuse and intangible. Instead, Mr. Reid argued that the city could achieve greater benefits on the auditorium side by building a new performing arts center or enlarging the Cleland Theatre and roughly equal benefits on the gym side by streamlining the process by which groups can access the school district’s existing gyms during evenings and weekends.

The latter is certainly an attractive argument given the number of school gyms in this town. But the argument has an important caveat, which Mr. Reid made clear during his presentation of elementary school utilization: “The high school gyms are normally fully used; it is tough to get into them.” Mr. Reid’s “viable alternatives to Pen-Hi” thus depend on the assumption that gyms are fungible—that is, an elementary school gym is completely interchangeable with a high-school gym. As any adult who uses school gyms will tell you though, gym space is emphatically not fungible. Elementary schools are small boxes with poor lighting, low ceilings, and (invariably) dirty floors. More importantly, there is little or no room for spectators or warming-up since the playing area generally occupies the building’s entire footprint. The Pen-Hi gym, in contrast, is a huge space with lots of room for observing, preparing, and socializing. “Make do!” you might be saying. But it is interesting to note by way of comparison that Mayor Kimberley is much more sensitive to subtle differences in amenities when discussing his own interests. In his argument in favor of demolishing the Pen-Hi auditorium, for example, he notes that the facility lacks an adequate space to have a glass of wine during intermission.

Unfortunately, the critical issue of whether the Carmi School gym is really a “viable alternative” to the Pen-Hi gym was never seriously debated during the council meeting. Instead, Mayor Kimberley contradicted Mr. Reid and stated confidently that Pen-Hi’s state of the art new gym will be available in the future for rental by community groups. Dr. Sandra Congram, who was making a presentation at the time, recalled her own experience as a parent and reminded the mayor that high-school teams monopolize their gyms until late in the evening for most of the school year. Mayor Kimberley, unconvinced, returned to the ample availability of high school gym space in his concluding remarks. Why city staff did not interject and correct the mayor is unknown to me.

Mayor Kimberley also used the discussion to express personal opinions about the projected costs of saving the gym and auditorium, which he argued were far too low. I certainly do not dispute the mayor’s right to publicly scoff at detailed cost estimates prepared by Greyback Construction, reviewed by city staff, and verified by an independent quantity surveyor. The mayor has earned his chops in the construction industry and, to date, has consistently been within plus or minus $17M when estimating a project’s true cost. The problem is that he does not apply the same reasoning to the alternatives, specifically the proposed performing arts facility. If the city cannot risk cost increases in a project with a base price of $1.5M, how can it recommend instead taking on a project with a base price of $30M?

Of course many other financial objections were raised by council and there is not enough space to mock them all. But two stand out. Objection #1: The city cannot afford spend $500K of taxpayer’s money to demolish the gym and auditorium at some unspecified point in the future. Suggested solution: School District 67 has already budgeted $500K of taxpayer’s money to demolish the buildings next year. Perhaps a taxpayer-to-taxpayer transfer of some type can be arranged. Objection #2: Fundraising for a new performing arts centre cannot start until land for the facility has been secured. Suggested solution: Assuming this is true, the city should buy the land now and give it to the performing arts society so that they can get started. If the required $30M (or whatever) to build cannot be raised, the land can revert to the city (and sold for a net profit to the city if Councilor Litke’s prediction of negative real interest rates is accurate).

For some reason though, both the city and the performing arts facility society insist that the city cannot buy land for a new facility and take over the gym and the auditorium at the same time. Even though keeping the auditorium provides us with insurance against foreseen and unforeseen problems with building a new facility, and even though $1.5M also buys us a large gymnasium, they argue that the money for the upgrade should be channeled instead to the new performing arts facility. True, the money saved by abandoning the opportunity to retain the Pen-Hi buildings, plus a few bottle drives and perhaps a bake sale, gets us to the 5% mark. But it is not clear where the other $28.5M for the new facility is going to come from.

As both Mayor Kimberley and Councilor McIvor reveal in their closing remarks of the discussion, the overriding objective of their decision is not risk reduction, but risk maximization. Economists call it moral hazard, but we can it the Macbeth strategy: city council convinces SD67 to kill the rival auditorium, thereby eliminating any possibility of a “Make do!” argument. As Councilor McIvor points out, the absence of a large performing arts facility in a city of this size would be incongruous, making it much easier to pressure both the federal and provincial governments for funding. It is a shrewd strategy and may indeed improve our chances of receiving outside funding for a stunning new facility. Three problems though: The first is that our chances of outside funding may be improved, but still be very slim. We hear a lot of slogans about commitment, and “horsepower”, and “getting on with it” when discussing a new facility. What we do not hear is any specific funding commitments. The second problem is that a third of the capital cost and all operating losses of the new facility will be borne by local taxpayers. So while the Macbeth strategy may indeed compel outsiders to fund our new facility, it also compels local taxpayers to come up with a tidy pile of money. Taxpayers may balk at precipitating their own facilities deficit and respond: “You had an okay auditorium; you knocked it down.” The third problem (as Councilor Ashton recognized) is the gymnasium has become pawn in these machinations. Mr. Reid acknowledged early in his presentation to council that he initially thought saving both the gym and auditorium was a no-brainer, as did 60% of the people surveyed by the city. Somehow, the simplicity of it all has been lost.

I cannot recall how Macbeth ends (and since we are knocking down our best theatre with no replacement in sight, I am in little danger of being reminded). But I do recall some anxiety about a “damned spot” of blood. If their strategy falls short, perhaps the mayor and certain councilors will be similarly haunted by spots of demolition debris.

Update: SONG meets with the school board

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

Plea to save Pen High buildings unlikely to sway board

By KATHY MICHAELS
Western News Staff
May 16 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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