Questionable Process

Has the City been objective in performing due diligence and examining alternatives? Or did the City start with its conclusion – and then work backwards to justify that conclusion?

This started with the report from the Leadership Committee appointed to study the issue:

“Why downtown? It has to be downtown.”

Source: City Shaping – The Summary Report of the Leadership
Committee for a New Sports/Entertainment Facility for Edmonton

Does this statement leave any room for discussion or debate?

Public opinion

The City seems to have ignored the many polls showing public opposition to the arena project, in favour of surveys that seem designed to generate positive responses.

 

Our Poll Results

Voices for Democracy commissioned a telephone poll. In late January 2011, Environics Research Group Ltd. asked 164 Edmontonians living within city limits these two questions:

1) “Do you agree that the City of Edmonton should provide taxpayers’ money to build a new downtown arena?”

 

 

2) “Arenas generate revenue from several sources.  These include a usage or rental fee for each event, concession income, parking fees, and advertising and naming rights.

 If the City of Edmonton contributes money to the construction of a new arena, do you agree or disagree that it should receive a proportionate share of the arena revenues?”

The poll results are considered accurate to within 7.7% , 19 times out of 20.

Other Poll Results

• March 2011 Ipsos Reid poll shows 71% of Edmontonians oppose the use of The City of Edmonton should provide taxpayer's money for a new downtown arena.
• August 2009 Ipsos Reid poll showed 76% of Edmontonians disagreed with the statement: “The City should provide taxpayers’ money for a new arena."
• September 2010 Ipsos Reid-Global News poll showed only 26% of people agreed with the statement “The City should provide taxpayers’ money for a new hockey arena."
• October 2010 Ipsos Reid-Northlands poll showed only 27% of people agreed with statement "The City of Edmonton should provide taxpayer's money for a new downtown arena." These poll results were given directly to the City.
• January 2011 Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey found 62% of Alberta-Saskatchewan-Manitoba respondents opposed to federal government funding for professional sports facilities.

Given clear and unambiguous questions, Edmontonians reject the current arena proposal.

 

• The City’s January13, 2011 Community Consultation Report refers repeatedly to the results of the “Online Questionnaire” made available on the City of Edmonton website between Oct. 28-Nov. 20, 2010.
  
  But the online questionnaire results are completely invalid. The Edmonton Oilers interfered with the process by auto-dialing 350,000 households and urging those who wanted an arena to fill out the questionnaire. The same week the Oilers’ telephone message went out, responses surged from 18,000 to over 28,000. Was this just a coincidence?
   
• As a follow-up to the online questionnaire, the City commissioned a telephone survey in December 2010. The survey seems designed more to obtain predetermined answers than to accurately determine peoples’ opinions. For example:
  • One question asked “Do you think think the City of Edmonton should contribute funds to a new downtown arena as long as it does not raise the property tax rate or reallocate infrastructure funds?”
    
    This question very strongly implies the arena will cost taxpayers nothing. Who isn’t in favor of that?
    
    But governments simply cannot deliver something for nothing or else we wouldn’t have to pay taxes to cover the cost of roads, hospitals and schools - and arenas.
    
    Why was this question even included in the phone survey, let alone given prominence as indication of “public support” for the arena? 
     
  • 53% of phone survey respondents were opposed to “Designating a special area around the arena and dedicating the tax revenue from property value increases in the area to pay for the new arena,” the Community Revitalization Levy (CRL) meant to cover part of the arena debt.
    
    Read it again: the poll statement is quite clear. But at the the January 17 meeting, City Council was told the opposition to the CRL resulted from a “lack of explanation” of how the CRL works.
     
  • The December telephone poll omitted probably the most important question surrounding the project: "Should the public receive a proportionate share of arena revenues if public dollars are used in its construction?"
    
    Why wasn’t this crucial question asked?
     

Consistent understatements of cost

The City has consistently understated the arena project’s cost.

• As of February 4, 2011 the City’s website said the facility’s cost “is estimated to be in the range of $400 to $450 million.”
  
  But at the January 17, 2010 City Council meeting, all presentation materials used a cost of $450 million. Why is the low estimate of $400 million still available on the public website?
   
• At the same meeting this January 17, Council was informed that the $450 million estimate does not include the cost of land for the facility or the cost of the second ice rink (the “community” rink). Nor does it include the cost of the Winter Garden or of any infrastructure requirements (roads, etc.). How much will these items add to the total bill? Why are they not included in the cost estimate?
   
• The City used current Rexall Place attendance figures to estimate the revenue generated from a $5 ticket surcharge. (These were adjusted upwards for the proposed arena’s slightly higher seating capacity.)
  
  But this estimate is an exaggeration, because Northlands has vowed publicly to keep running Rexall Place for concerts and other events. Their lease doesn’t expire until 2034 and so Northlands cannot be forced to abandon all its concert and event business.
  
  To calculate the surcharge benefit the City used the same attendance estimates as though Rexall Place were closed. But since Rexall Place will remain open, shouldn’t the attendance estimate have been lowered?

Read further: "Downtown Revitalization" »