Taxpayers deserve options for solving Lansdowne’s financial problems

What is driving the city’s refusal to discuss them?

 By Carolyn Mackenzie

Taxpayers deserve more than just a “take it or leave it” proposal to address the financial challenges facing the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) at Lansdowne. However, the City refuses to engage in discussions regarding alternatives.

At the heart of the proposed Lansdowne 2.0 development is a new arena for the 67s, which would double as a new performance venue. It will cost upwards of $200 million and reduce valuable green and park space. The city’s refusal to consider alternative locations that could offer more benefits to taxpayers raises serious questions about what is influencing the decision-making process.

Make no mistake – the Lansdowne 2.0 proposal is a response to OSEG’s ongoing financial losses. OSEG is now seeking a new deal and asking taxpayers to make a total investment that will likely reach $400 million, only 10 years after Lansdowne 1.0 was completed. However, before committing to such a substantial investment, taxpayers have a valid concern: Where should a new arena be located to maximize accessibility for all Ottawa residents, provide city-wide advantages and contribute to the overall financial viability of the City?

For those living nearby, the convenience of walking or biking to a 67s game or a concert at the Civic Centre is undoubtedly appealing. However, OSEG and numerous Ottawa residents from Kanata, Orleans and South Ottawa have highlighted transportation as the Achilles’ heel of Lansdowne. The lack of good transportation options leads to fewer attendees and, consequently, financial difficulties for Lansdowne. Unfortunately, ongoing challenges after 10 years of operation demonstrate that there are no easy answers.

Modern arenas and larger concert venues are typically built near highways with extensive vehicle parking lots or near LRT or rapid transit systems. Lansdowne offers neither of these. Constructing a massive parking lot is unfeasible, the site is not adjacent to a highway and an LRT along Bank Street is unlikely to materialize any time soon. Given that the City is already investing billions in Ottawa’s LRT, making a substantial investment in a new venue that does not align with or support the LRT is highly questionable. The idea that Ottawa is poised to do it raises concerns about the decision-making process and what information is being provided to decision-makers.

So, it is surprising that city staff recently advised that they would not consider alternatives for relocating the new event centre off-site (or even rebuilding in its current location). This contradicts earlier statements suggesting that nothing was set in stone and that robust public consultations could be expected. The lack of flexibility in exploring reasonable options raises questions about what is influencing this resistance. Staff have also stated that they are now considering options that are not revenue neutral, contrary to council direction. On what basis do they ignore council direction on one key element but not show flexibility on another?

In light of these concerns, the Glebe Community Association (GCA) recently wrote to the City, requesting that residents be presented with real alternatives to the key elements of the Lansdowne 2.0 plan. The GCA specifically urged the City to explore options for relocating the arena and performance centre to city-owned or other viable sites located near the LRT. The GCA once again emphasized the need for informed and meaningful public consultations, which have been absent from the process thus far.

While Glebe residents would miss the convenience of walking to arena events at Lansdowne, accessing a new venue (such as Bayview Yards, Tom Brown Arena or Coventry Road) would not be an extreme hardship compared to what other residents across the city face now. It is essential to evaluate whether locating the venue near the LRT makes better sense, both financially and from the larger perspective of the livability and attractiveness of Ottawa. It is crucial to assess the available options and engage in open discussions to ensure the best outcome for all taxpayers.

Carolyn Mackenzie chairs the Glebe Community Association Planning Committee.

A 3-D model of the Lansdowne 2.0 proposed development was on display at the Great Glebe Garage Sale.

photo: Liz McKeen