Tbnewswatch Local News
Tuesday July 7 2015
10:14 PM EDT
2014-04-02 at 16:33

Plebiscite push

By tbnewswatch.com

A Thunder Bay city councillor says an event centre plebiscite motion could be up for debate on Monday night.

Neebing Coun. Linda Rydholm, who wouldn’t discuss specifics of the question she’s formulated, said she’s drafted the motion that if successful would put a question of whether or not to go ahead with the estimated $106.1 million project on the Oct. 27 ballot.

The motion is now being looked over by the city clerk.

Rydholm is expected to speak to media about the question on Thursday.

On Tuesday night a group of about 100 residents opposed to the event centre plan gathered at the Da Vinci Centre.

Click here to submit a letter to the editor.

Click here to report a typo or error



We've improved our comment system.
progress now says:
This comment from bttnk is interesting:

"For every Moose Jaw, there are literally 1000 success stories of event and conference centres built in a entertainment district. "

You seem to speak with the authority of city admin - perhaps corporate communications?

Regardless, respectfully, It would be helpful if you could provide that list - not a thousand of course, but say 20 or so. It would then be possible to see for ourselves the argument for the $100 million centre that has city council caught so fervently under its spell.

The evaluation will not be easy, as success in one city is no guarantee of success in another, but I am certain that you are not suggesting that it is.

Still, we would love to look at that list.

4/3/2014 4:09:11 PM
Dockboy says:
I'm not impressed with your little cartoon Hank. You sure as heck won't be getting my vote.
4/3/2014 3:08:39 PM
northfirst says:
well Brandon your ad homonyms about lack of trust aside, I guess we should rely upon what? the self proclaimed mayor in waiting, the CAVE people and coffee fueled gossip?

You miss my point; informed decision making is what our governance model is based upon, noise - even loud noise - doesn't replace actually understanding the pros & cons and facts of a matter. But understanding those takes some effort; surprise me and make the effort.
4/3/2014 2:37:47 PM
EJ says:
Any vote really begs 2 questions. Should the Gardens be replaced? If so, with a new rink or an event centre. What's the difference at least $60 million.
4/3/2014 2:11:38 PM
fastball says:
Sorry...you can only ask a single yes/no question only.
That's the deal.
4/3/2014 3:20:52 PM
madtrapper says:
Did you know that you could save 15% or more on car insurance by switching to Geico?
4/3/2014 2:06:29 PM
Jack Frost says:
?Democracy vs. Makeup

It is more than quite obvious to most if not all city and area residents and TAXpayers, that this current Thunder Bay mayor and city council's view of applied democracy is no different than applied makeup !!

So sad that they all laboriously apply and remove this democratic makeup only as and when it suits them...
4/3/2014 1:45:47 PM
northfirst says:
wow what a pack of drivel. didn't expect much else but still makes me shake my head that the uninformed and misinformed can spout off with such conviction. 2 weeks ago 6 of Henry's cronies, while making deputations to council, opening admitted that they had read NONE of the reports on the Event & Convention Centre. NONE.
so based on that informed perspective they want to vote....
And then this week the same crowd treat any with a different opinion in such a disgraceful manner its pretty clear they are only interested in hearing their own voices.

last I checked we elect Council to read the reports, have the debate, consult with the public and make an informed decision. That is how our democracy is designed and works. Mob rule does not make for democracy. So put your pots, pans and pitchforks away. And when the next issue comes along take a few hours and actually read the reports.
4/3/2014 9:44:06 AM
fastball says:
What...and let facts and logic rule the day? Why would you do that - when fear, irrationality, pig-headed stubbornness and willful ignorance has been enough for some of these people so far?
Some of them have legitimate questions - which will be answered when further studies have been completed, and when there's some indication of the funding breakdown.
Some of them are just annoyed at the location chosen - and have decided that if they're not happy, they're gonna make sure that no one's happy.
Some of them are perennial fringe candidates that have tied their oft-failed political dreams to this event center controversy - in some delusional hope that everyone will overlook their myriad of other faults, as they strive to be portrayed as the defender of the common taxpayer guy.
And some of them are just professional gadflies, who think that merely repeating the same thing over and over again, but LOUDER - will change the fact that their arguments are baseless.
The rest are trolls.
4/3/2014 11:06:00 AM
brandon says:
You do realize those consultants reports are typically miles off the mark in this type of project? Like Kingstons, which went from $30m in the consultants report to $64m ?

Those reports are paid for by the city and you can bet they have specifically told the companies making them what the outcome of those reports should be and to build the case around a set outcome.

Calling them 'fact' and basing our decisions on them without looking at the failures they have been in other communities is wrong.

As for democracy, people elected Hobbs and most of the councillors on a belief that they would get a plebiscite. Here we are with a good idea of total cost (double the cost of many other facilities of similar size, think Moose Jaw), and they have flip flopped. Thats not democracy. Thats an elected official going back on their word and acting as if they are offended people are upset.

Moral of the story: don't trust flip flopping politicians and the reports they pay for.
4/3/2014 12:03:19 PM
fastball says:
The plebiscite issue was, at best, a minor talking-point issue in the last election campaign. It's not as if Hobbs was SWEPT into office on the basis of his stand on a plebiscite. OK, he had an opinion at the time...four years later, with a new economic reality, combined with a lot of reading and studying the issue may have changed his mind. At least the guy admits to having changed his mind after educating himself on the issue...which is a lot more than can be said for the majority of opponents.
If we can get the province and feds to go 50-60% of the costs...I'm ok with it.
4/3/2014 1:26:30 PM
terwilliger says:
Is that you at the front with the pitchfork Henry. Lets hope you keep waiting
4/3/2014 9:03:18 AM
ou812 says:

"Any way the wind blows"...

Just changed your mind
Cane shakers whined at you
threatened riots, bullied you
the campaign's just begun
but now you've gone and thrown it all away

linda...ooo ooo ooo
4/3/2014 8:59:26 AM
hounddog says:
Thank-you Councillor Rydholm, finally a Councillor that listens to their constituents. Regardless of what the deciding vote is, at least we will all have a say.
4/3/2014 8:31:45 AM
working_man says:
It appears that it's still only approx. 100 people leading the charge opposed to the proposed event centre. They haven't really gathered much support yet seem to think that this council is doing the citizans some sort of major injustice. I dont get it.
I will always remember attending the Fort Williams Gardens years ago, watching the Twins play, and what did we see back then?? Ray Smith....running around and around.... waving signs that clearly read "MAKE SOME NOISE!!"
With all do respect, it fit the scene then, but in my opinion, doesn't fit this time.
4/3/2014 8:16:16 AM
Spazz says:
I can't help noticing that the pro-event centre Facebook group is just shy of 1800 members. Could you please point me towards the massive anti movement your referring to? Some actual people putting their names to it please, not just stating an opinion as fact.
4/3/2014 1:42:48 AM
brandon says:
1) Easy to click 'like' on something.

2) Most young people want this. Many of them are not yet burdened with the cost of owning a house. Very few of them are living on a fixed income like our seniors. They often have more disposable income. They are also all on Facebook whereas many older folk are not.

If Facebook likes was the key to this type of thing, the NDP would be in power Federally right now. And yet, the Cons, with their (at the time) few Facebook likes, still managed a majority.

Facebook really is an active and fairly narrow demographic.
4/3/2014 12:06:34 PM
hotchoc says:
I am somewhat new to the concept of irrationality, but I missed something somewhere along this long and getting more angry debate.

Can someone please tell me what anyone--- by anyone I mean

A-- members of Council
B-- Supporters of this centre

Can show me that categorically proves the majority of this city is in favour of this event centre.

I understand people support it. I understand people do not. I may be extremely naive but I doubt that you could convince me that the convention centre portion will ever be a big deal. It does not improve our city if events are moved from the Dome to the new centre and now the dome sits empty.

Can anyone please provide that, and the proof that conventions will come here and an estimate as to how many of these huge shows will come here.

I promise you I have an open mind on the subject but it is not an empty slate to be filled in with rhetoric. Someone please fill it in with a fact or two and not a consultants guesswork.
4/3/2014 12:07:32 AM
tonytiger says:
They cannot give you any proof that anyone other than their agents for change are for this arena.
They also cannot convince you that this arena will improve our city. It'll do the exact opposite, but the burden is on them to prove otherwise.
No conventions are coming here, nor are people coming from far afield to attend events, they have zero data to support any of this. It's all pure speculation and propaganda.

4/3/2014 12:44:57 AM
123CMEP says:
Where is the proof that the majority of the city is against this?
4/3/2014 4:50:39 PM
tonytiger says:
That's why we need to put this disaster to a vote.
Then you'll get your proof.
Tonight's poll proved it.
60% want a PLEBISCITE!!!
4/3/2014 11:49:50 PM
humnchuck says:
Conditions re: submitting a question

8.1(1)A by-law to submit a question to the electors under clause 8 (1) (b) or (c),
(a) shall be passed at least 180 days before voting day in the election at which it is intended to submit the question to the electors;

(b) cannot be amended after the last date referred to in clause (a); and

(c) despite clause (b), can be repealed on or before nomination day and, if the election does not include an election for an office, on or before the 31st day before voting day. 2000, c. 5, s. 28.

(2)A question authorized by by-law under clause 8 (1) (b) shall comply with the following rules:

1. It shall concern a matter within the jurisdiction of the municipality.
2. Despite rule 1, it shall not concern a matter which has been prescribed by the Minister as a matter of provincial interest.
3. It shall be clear, concise and neutral.
4. It shall be capable of being answered in the affirmative or the negative & only permitted answers "yes" and "no".
4/2/2014 10:47:47 PM
Dan Dan says:
Such a big noise coming from about 100 senior citizens in opposition to the events centre. Are we going to have a plebiscite every time somebody disagrees with something?

Get some significant support first. Show me a couple thousand signatures on paper; otherwise you're wasting the city's time.
4/2/2014 10:23:43 PM
S Duncan says:
sorry, the onus is on the city to prove that there is support for this.

if they don't, then we don't elect them. They are walking a fine line that Commisso has put them on. They have also allowed him to do that by not standing up for the citizens of this city.

Signatures don't mean anything. Votes from registered voters in Thunder Bay do.

everything else is white noise. including yours.
4/2/2014 10:45:06 PM
fastball says:
Um...where is stated that the onus is on the city? Seriously, are you saying that's some kind of municipal bylaw?
Unless told "NO" in the form of a single-question plebiscite by a majority of the electorate - I'm pretty sure that any city council proceed in any direction it chooses.
There is no "onus"...give your head a shake.
4/3/2014 2:51:04 PM
signman says:
Why is City manager Tim Commisso so afraid to let all citizens have a vote?
He wants to spend $20,000 on a survey that would only include 500-800 citizens. What about the rest of us! Larry Hebert stated on March 17th that these surveys were not very accurate.
See you Monday, April 7 at the rally in front of city hall at 5:45pm.
4/2/2014 9:41:55 PM
SomeGuy says:
The city manager has nothing to do with letting people vote on this issue.
4/3/2014 8:37:54 AM
Sprague Street Superman says:
If he has nothing to do with a plebiscite on this matter, then why is he attending a meeting of concerned taxpayers that are requesting a plebiscite?
4/3/2014 4:28:09 PM
Jack Frost says:
So sad McKellar Ward's "Bleeding Heart" Paul Pugh will never be half the man that Neebing's Ward Linda Rydholm is !!

LOL !!
4/2/2014 9:20:22 PM
S Duncan says:
Totally love this comment! I laughed pretty hard.

If it wasn't so sadly true it would have had me in stitches
4/2/2014 11:02:59 PM
Kam River says:
councillor Rydholm and Hebert, understand the importance of allowing people to have their say.
musicferret says: Is correct about Moose Jaw, Here in Thunder Bay we were told the same thing That the Casino would bring in Bus Loads of Tourists, the shops and hotel would be over flowing. We all know that did not happen
4/2/2014 8:01:33 PM
tiredofit says:
It's a simple question; If the the Feds and the Province each agree to fund 1/3 the cost up to say $33 million each are you in favour of a new centre? YES NO Pretty simple folks. Be you in favour not not, you get your vote based on the information promised to date.
4/2/2014 7:53:13 PM
SomeGuy says:
Considering we already have our 1/3 set aside the answer is a simple yes.
4/3/2014 8:39:16 AM
Thunderbaylover says:
Oh ya if anything I think it should seat more people like 6000+ and be located downtown north core.
4/2/2014 7:44:04 PM
Thunderbaylover says:
If the doomsayers want a vote then why not have a plebiscite with the municipal elections? Hopefully there are enough forward thinking people in TBay to pass the vote in favour and I suspect there are. You can have a good debate but make sure supporters make a good case for it. The question posed cannot include where it should be built, that issue should be decided by council alone.
4/2/2014 7:41:00 PM
lori says:
at the risk of having YQTYQT agree with me again, as I posted earlier maybe one of you support at any cost supporters can answer this question for me.

Why can we not just have a vote when all of the facts and figures are in.

Then no one has to fight or argue.

Simple, clean. The vote will be 2015, 2016, whenever. All the info will be there.

200 grand to decide if we are going to spend 106 million. Sounds like a wise investment.

And just so you know, I am not opposed completely nor do I support completely. I feel a high level of concern. here is why.

The same folks who gave us Horizon Wind, then spent 70 million on a Bdg and a skatepark, with about 8-10 million in overruns. I view that as the mistake by the lake. Not because we did something but because of what we got for the millions we spent and the millions wasted.

Do you really have enough blind faith in these folks to provide concrete numbers.

If you do, you are much more trusting than I am.
4/2/2014 7:39:19 PM
Wolfie says:
"maybe one of you support at any cost supporters can answer"

I don't think you'll find many of those. From reading the comments, most against the plebiscite simply believe that now is too early.
4/2/2014 10:12:51 PM
S Duncan says:
That's a cop out.

This is just another excuse from the welfare dome supporters.

We know the costs already proposed. We know the location because we were told where it would be. We know the estimated yearly operating costs. We know the proposed tenant.

We know the FEDS said they would not give any money towards hockey rinks (which is what this is, just look at who the tenant is for proof).

So what don't we know? the final cost? We never will know.

If you want to make assumptions, it would be fair to conclude as with all projects of this magnitude that costs will go over by at least 10% taking this to $116.6 Million dollars and yearly operating losses of $1.32 Million dollars per year.

You don't have to jump off a 300 foot cliff to know what the outcome will be. You may not know exactly how many bones will be shattered, but you know the results are going to be bad.

We know more than enough to have a plebiscite in October/14

Why would anybody be scared of a plebiscite?
4/2/2014 10:32:44 PM
Wolfie says:
"We know the FEDS said they would not give any money"

If that's the case then it isn't going to be built, and you have nothing to worry about.
4/3/2014 7:09:49 AM
mikethunderbay says:
You know S Duncan you come on here speaking as though you have all the facts but you continue to mention the feds will not fund a hockey rink, implying to anyone who reads that they will not provide a third of the funding for this project, which the city has stated is the only way this will go forward. What you should know is that the feds will fund convention centers, which is why this facility would not simply be a hockey rink but a convention center as well. By including a convention center in the application for funding to the feds this project would be eligible for federal funding. Being against this is fine, but do not omit and mislead people on purpose and if its not on purpose then perhaps your quite as well read on the issue as you attempt to seem....
4/3/2014 9:44:51 AM
S Duncan says:
I asked what we don't yet know about it.

We know enough to clearly decide to pursue this or not.

you clearly avoided that part choosing to try and cloud the issue with insignificant details.

Its past time for a plebiscite. the only reason people keep saying we don't know enough is because they know once we are too deep in it, they will push for it to be built anyway.

that's been done before.
4/3/2014 12:02:34 PM
mikethunderbay says:
I didn't avoid anything, I was simply pointing out that in your argument you either deliberately were misleading people or are unaware of what type of building would qualify for federal funding.
It's one or the other, either your misleading on purpose or simply aren't as well read on the subject as you imply
4/3/2014 1:43:27 PM
nvjgu says:
That's it ,Im looking for a motel to buy for all the non union unqualified outa towners.
4/2/2014 6:43:08 PM
CLETE says:
I hope we are going to see other questions on the plebiscite concerning how our tax dollars are being spent. What's good for the goose is good for the gander!!
4/2/2014 6:33:47 PM
sd says:
@hadenough thank you for using your brain and separating fact from fiction and wanting to use due diligence. By far one of the few intelligent comments so far
4/2/2014 6:28:32 PM
sd says:
Oh and S Duncan please stop insulting people. Name calling. Using the word welfare to refer to this. And please stop assuming that people who are for the project are afraid of a plebiscite. All we want is the facts so we can inform ourself before deciding on such a large proposition. Perhaps it is you people who are against the center who want a plebiscite now because you know that if people became informed by facts and not from rhetoric and online arguments that the vote would be YES lets build.
4/2/2014 6:26:14 PM
S Duncan says:
I'll type what I type, and you type what you type, OK?

You crybabys keep trying to move the goal posts on the plebiscite issue. First it was too expensive, now that that's been shot down, now you claim its we don't know enough..

..,but somehow its OK for us to elect these people without knowing everything and its OK for them to make decisions not knowing everything, and we're not supposed to know anything because they know everything?

yeah, sorry. These bozos couldn't turn a profit at a $100/glass koolaid stand, just look at their real life experience for proof.

they don't have ANY!

We know if we want it or not. Why are you scared of the vote?

you seem to be a little whiney about everything though and behave as though city council is your parents.

and, sorry if you don't like the term welfare, but that's exactly what it is. Its taking from the many to support a cause/project that cannot support itself.

that's welfare any way you slice it.

Yours truly,
Scott Duncan
4/2/2014 9:52:36 PM
trips says:
one thing that has never been raised is what will the individual tax payer will have to pay extra for this centre per year? ...my uneducated guess would be less than 5 dollars a year...
4/2/2014 6:19:33 PM
S Duncan says:
its quite uneducated, but nevertheless..

are you going to pay my share? how about the people that don't want it? are you going to pay theirs as well?

if not, then don't spend other people's money. Spend your own. If you don't have enough, that's your cue to work harder or spend less.
4/2/2014 9:45:22 PM
tonytiger says:
Um, you might want to check your math again there tripy. Put down the abacus and try a calculator, or even the computer you're on.
Using your equation at $5 per taxable household the arena would only be costing a couple hundred thousand.
Try over $500 per residence, at a bare minimum, and you'd be getting closer.
4/2/2014 9:45:47 PM
Wolfie says:
Are there no commercial taxpayers anymore?
4/2/2014 10:14:32 PM
tonytiger says:
That $500 figure factors in residential and commercial tax payers over the first decade of the facilities use. If parking, debts and other overruns are factored in, it'd of course be much higher.
Certainly not anywhere near the unrealistic $5 per payer figure the pro arena jokers are wrongfully leading people to believe is correct.

4/2/2014 10:53:40 PM
Wolfie says:
So it's $500 over a decade? Or annually?
4/3/2014 7:08:18 AM
sd says:
Listen people. This topic should just be put to rest. It is so simple. It is too early for a plebiscite. No one in this city has all the information to make a decision on this. Sure it would be great to have a question on the next election ballot from the viewpoint of cost effectiveness. However, any question would be hypothetical based on only partial information. This is so simple. Whether you are for or against the project at this point in time all your arguing, meetings, rallys, and name calling is completely absurd. Just stop. Stop commenting on articles. Stop writing articles. Stop writing to the opinion section over and over. Let's all take a deep breath and wait until the facts are known before we all go off half cocked.
4/2/2014 6:19:00 PM
sinkoreswim says:
2 council members are looking at a plebiscite. BIG WHOOP. These two vs the rest plus the mayor who has already adamantly said NO numerous times. There's no threat here, especially this late in the game. The mayor will not back down and this will all be water under the bridge very soon.

I hope Mr Wojak and Mr Smith have some back up plan for how to spend their time when they find out they have nothing else to do after the 14th.
4/2/2014 6:11:51 PM
brandon says:
Trouble is, other councillors have heard a majority against in their wards, but refuse to listen. Troubling.

Not to mention Hobbs flip flop.
Put it to a vote. Why not?
4/2/2014 6:19:45 PM
SomeGuy says:
Really, a majority? How have they heard a majority. Has a scientific study been done? Has all the people in the ward been asked?

Nope, your just making this stuff up.
4/2/2014 7:24:53 PM
brandon says:
?? How do you know there is a majority in favour of it? Has a scientific study been done? Have all the people in the ward been asked?

There is no way to 'prove' either side, other than a plebiscite.

But from what I saw at my ward meeting, a majority of people are not happy about it. Plus, based on these councillors bringing it up, it would appear that its happening in other wards.
4/3/2014 3:13:59 PM
Watchmaker says:
Come and watch the progress stopping cane shakers. The "division" people see on this issue is a figment of imagination by a number of posters and about 100 people, most who likely belong to the Henry and Ray Roll up the Rim club.

Councillors - don't make the mistake that, just because they can shake their canes and rattle their pots and pans outside city hall that they speak for the majority of the electorate.

The Gardens has served a useful life and has been on life support for 20 years. Time to let go people.
4/2/2014 6:00:19 PM
bluebear1985 says:
I can't believe that someone on council is still going for this. Rydholm on council is a joke. She has overstayed her welcome in her ward. Even the runner-up in the 2010 election, Bill Scollie, would be better. She knows about as much about the issue as the Concerned Citizens of Thunder Bay group, which isn't much. She needs to be more informed before she even brings forth the idea of a plebiscite, because it's not going to happen. The event centre has the green light as far as I'm concerned.
4/2/2014 5:55:57 PM
Gord says:
This is unreal - THERE IS NOTHING TO ASK YET - we don't know the details of costs, funding, annual costs, potential leases, anything. The vote will not stand up legally since any vote made now would be made without full disclosure of information - COMPLETE Waste of time. Council needs to stand up and ignore these idiots and keep going with the evaluation and viability process.
4/2/2014 5:48:21 PM
musicferret says:
Notice that Moose Jaw at least did it right, in that they had a plebiscite, and then when costs went up, had a second plebiscite.

And now the place is a white elephant with minimal economic impact and much higher than expected annual costs.

Regardless, at least the people officially wanted it.
We can't even get 1 plebiscite here, let alone 2, even when its free. Plus..... notice our cost is almost double theirs? Still wondering how on earth we got to anywhere near $106m.
4/2/2014 6:17:12 PM
realist says:
This is right in-line with the cost to build a new arena in Moncton. They are building a 7500 seat arena, while we are looking at around 5700 seats with ad additional 50,000 sq ft of convention space.

4/2/2014 7:10:20 PM
musicferret says:
Actually theirs is estimated at $100m including 12.5m to purchase land..... plus theirs is almost 2000 seats more than ours, and will include some convention space as well. Gotta tell you, increased arena seating is far more expensive than the convention space.

4/3/2014 11:47:24 AM
S Duncan says:
there is lots to ask.

the only reason there is so much to ask is because our councillors have taken us so far down the road already..

...without ever asking us if we wanted to go this far.

then when we were promised a plebiscite on the issue, we were openly lied to by someone who has pushed his wrath onto the media to the point where letters to the editor questioning his behavior disappear faster than a tax dollar given to a liberal.

Its past time for a plebiscite.
4/2/2014 6:49:40 PM
Gord says:
Actually, there is NOTHING to ask. Do you agree with an event centre if 100% funding is provided... likely the answer is yes... Do you agree with an event centre if 0% funding is received, likely the answer would be no. Likely, we are somewhere in between - do YOU know which one of those are closer? I dont think so, neither do I and neither do the idiots calling for a plebiscite, including whatever Councillors lack the fortitude to stick with what seems to be a good plan so far. If you disagree with the idea conceptually, fine.. but, dont try to wrap it up in common sense.
4/2/2014 9:55:54 PM
S Duncan says:
you carefully neglect to mention the yearly operating costs of $1.2 million dollars.

you neglect to mention the effects the auditorium will sustain from the competition.

you neglect to mention the costs of still owning the Gardens, and what will happen with the FW Curling Club.

You neglect to mention that the FEDS already said No to hockey rinks. You neglect the fact that the province is broke on bordering on economic collapse.

You neglect to mention the costs to move the hydro substation.

You neglect to mention the costs of acquiring the property required (beer store, etc..)

You neglect to mention the costs of moving the bus terminal, something that got glossed over already with the new courthouse in FW.

that right there is enough info for anybody that owns a calculator to give a loud and clear "NO" to.

This idea is sunk. It is not a good plan so far. IN fact its borderline stupid!

The time for this was before wasting $100 million on the marina.

They blew it big time!
4/2/2014 11:25:00 PM
buzz says:
You neglect to mention that we are working on an agreement with Thunder Bay Live that may take some of the operating costs off of the tax payer.
You neglect to mention that the auditorium services a very different need and market, broadway type shows and smaller concerts will not be held at the event centre. As well the auditorium and its management can manage bookings and ticket sales in both venues, providing efficencies.
You neglect to mention the study to repurpose the FW Gardens, and the fact operating costs will be greatly reduced.
You neglect to mention that the Feds will fund a convention centre side that is why it is attached, the Feds fund that side the province funds the rink.
You neglect to mention the substation is already scheduled to be decommissioned costs are there regardless.
You neglect to mention we do not know the costs of acquiring the property, we may be able to do a land swap, some may be seized for back taxes.
We need more info to have an informed vote
4/3/2014 8:23:54 AM
bttnk says:
S Duncan - Your fear mongering and loose grip of reality continues. Or perhaps you are on the right track.

Gord doesn't mention any of those items because I am going to assume he is keen to get the answers to those questions through Phase 3 of this project. The deep dive business plan.

1. Correct, the Feds said no to hockey rinks. You neglect to mention that we are proposing an Events Centre, which the Feds have said they are open to supporting financially.

2. You neglect to mention the province has already stated that they support the event centre and initial discussions indicate that some funding is a near certainty.

3. You neglect to mention that the event centre is not designed to compete directly with the Auditorium.

I could literally go on an on, but it really boils down to everyone, most notably you, needing the comprehensive details that the Phase 3 project plan will give us before we debate whether a plebiscite is appropriate.
4/3/2014 9:49:37 AM
ring of fire dude says:
"we don't know the details of costs, funding, annual costs, potential leases, anything." Gord , we will never know until the Event Center is built how much over budget it will be , then who picks up the tab for that ? Look at how much Marina Park went over budget , and it's still not completed ! Whats the timeline for completion of that project , Before the arena is built , during the construction of the arena or after the arena is built ? Either way Council is racking up a massive money pit which the taxpayers wont fill-in for decades .
4/2/2014 9:24:27 PM
hadenough says:
I know most of you will ignore this as there are facts involved but:

A plebiscite has to be a yes or no answer. Over 50% of the registered voters must vote on the question. The results of the plebiscite are binding. If the answer is yes, then the City is obligated to proceed even if funding from the other levels of government are not coming hence a massive cost to the taxpayers of the City. Phase three needs to completed, the facts presented to the public and then a decision can be made by the public for a plebiscite. For a project of this magnitude a separate plebiscite vote after phase three is not without merit but phase three should be completed first.
4/2/2014 5:45:24 PM
Eastender says:
Not exactly true. The question could easily be worded to reflect the cost factor into the building of the centre. It does not have to be a either or question.
4/2/2014 6:27:03 PM
fastball says:
Way to go, Linda - we knew you could be counted to swing like a weathervane on any issue that's getting vocal.
Remember...it's not the volume of the debate that counts - it's the validity of the debate. But if you want to tie your wagon to the Henry and Ray Traveling Show and pander to the Gang of 100...feel free.
It's time for some new blood on council anyways.
4/2/2014 5:37:40 PM
S Duncan says:
actually in a democracy, it IS the volume of the debate that matters.

it doesn't matter how informed or uninformed the voters are, its the majority that counts.

often that's bad, but in this case I'm quite sure the majority is against this.

but , lets just have a vote.

what is there to fear?
4/2/2014 5:49:34 PM
fastball says:
Ah, I get it now....a vocal minority is the hallmark of democracy.
One needn't have to get all technical and present a well thought-out argument with boring facts and logic - one merely has to yell LOUDER than the other guy. How simple! How...democratic.
I had a 4-year old once who used to employ that kind of methodology in any debate.
The only problem is that your apparent "majority" is ill-informed...and chooses to remain that way.
4/2/2014 6:55:53 PM
conker2012 says:
4/2/2014 11:08:53 PM
S Duncan says:
then just say no to it.

how difficult is that?

how do you say no? Well, your mayor isn't listening, neither are your councillors.

so you better demand a plebiscite, or if we don't get that opportunity, we are left with no choice but to vote out in entirety our existing council on the grounds that they will not entertain democracy on such a large, abnormal, and lets face it, ridiculous project.

If you fear legal obligations, you better start asking Commisso why we are in it this deep already? Or better yet, have your councillor do it, since they are supposedly there to represent you.

I fear we may already be obligated to build this because in the city's obvious desperation to locate a hotelier for the marina after they spent so many millions on it, they willingly jumped into a mess of a deal with a legal obligation to provide the new hockey rink.

that's pure speculation on my, and many others parts, but after Horizon (which is ongoing) how can anybody deny that possibility?
4/2/2014 11:58:25 PM
conker2012 says:
I would rather wait to see the results of the phase 3 reports. Once we know the funding structure, the business plans, and all of the impacts to the tax payers then we could consider a vote.

It is better to risk $400k on a possible plebiscite in 2015 than risk $106,000,000 by having a plebiscite before knowing the final costs.
4/3/2014 3:44:21 PM
Common cents says:
Thank you councillor Rydholm, for doing what you where elected to do. Which is to do what best for the entire city, for the long term!

This events center if shoehorned in to a downtown location will be a all time failure of this city.

If you dont believe me go by a calling card and call the businesses around the newly build arena in Moose Jaw. asking them what it did for business around there.

- lots of people walking around
- next to zero increase in a tax base for the city.

Go ahead make the call.
4/2/2014 5:57:19 PM
bttnk says:
@common cents - This is Moose Jaw, SK right? A place with a population of 30,000 or 25% of the population of Thunder Bay?

Ok, despite the oddity of comparing Moose Jaw to Thunder Bay, I'll bite. For every Moose Jaw, there are literally 1000 success stories of event and conference centres built in a entertainment district. You may need a few calling cards to make all the calls.
4/3/2014 9:56:14 AM
brandon says:
Moose jaw : 33000.
Regina, 40 minutes away: 195000
Farm communities within 1 hour drive: aprox. 50

There are 2.5 the population of Thunder Bay within a 1 hour drive.
4/3/2014 3:20:18 PM
Mrbusinessman says:
One councillor bending to the pressure of an uninformed group of 100 bullies!
4/2/2014 5:29:51 PM
S Duncan says:
Would you prefer a whole city of 110,000 bowing down to the whims of 13 councillors?

why are you pro welfare dome people afraid of a vote?

why would any self respecting person in a free country be afraid of a vote? we ruled out cost of the plebiscite at being literally zero..

...so why cant we have a vote? somebody tell me.
4/2/2014 6:03:35 PM
sky high says:
I will tell you what is sad, pops....going to vote for elected officials and realizing after that one's vote really counted for nothing; since kaine shakers like you sit around all day whining about every little thing these elected officials decide and saying that a plebiscite is needed or there is no democracy. Sad, pops
4/2/2014 6:50:54 PM
S Duncan says:
was there a coherent thought expressed in there somewhere?

all I heard was a baby crying???
4/2/2014 9:40:30 PM
conker2012 says:
Simple, we vote "yes", feds backs out, province backs out , Thunder Bay Live Backs out, City is LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO BUILD THE EVENT CENTER REGARDLESS OF THE COST. THE COST WILL BE FULLY ON THE BACKS OF THE TAXPAYERS!

That is more risk than I am comfortable with. Let the city complete the Phase 3 studies, finalize available funding and when we know the whole story, then and only then should we consider a "PEBLISCITE" oops, "PLIEBLISCITE" dang it, PLEBISCITE
4/2/2014 10:58:54 PM
S Duncan says:
the feds and province could always back out.

that's the problem when you stick your neck out and ask everybody to be nice to you.

Heres what we know... The feds said NO to hockey rinks. That's what this is, if not, why does the the Winnipeg jetless want their farm team here for?

the province is broke and if it wasn't for our resources, essentially bankrupt. (because they throw money away)

the city cannot afford it. our population has not grown, our tax base has shrunk on a massive scale and will continue to do so because people wont live where taxes are too high, and that's happened here now since Commisso came on board.

We have wasted far too much time and money on this already. If this had been done before the marina for the 10th time, it might have made sense, but since that project is already bankrupt (theres no more money for phase whatever because they spent it all in phase whatever.

the whole thing is RISK, with no obvious reward.

its time to put this idea to bed.
4/2/2014 11:16:13 PM
conker2012 says:
DOESN'T MATTER PLEBISCITE SAYS YES WITH NO FUNDING, $106million on city tax payers back no backing out.
4/2/2014 11:33:51 PM
Sandwiches1123 says:
I refuse to take sides in this food fight and I'm amazed that the site administrators are allowing this amount of trolling to happen.

One thing you are missing conker is that council can request this be a non-binding plebiscite, which means the results do not require action. In essence, it is a fair determination of what the public thinks about the proposed Events Centre. Please calm down.

4/3/2014 9:14:46 AM
conker2012 says:
Sandwiches1123, perhaps you should check the applicable laws on plebiscite.

For council to put the question on the ballot it must follow the Municipal elections act.

The law states :

8.2(1)The results of a question authorized by a by-law under clause 8 (1) (b) are binding on the municipality which passed the by-law if,

(a) at least 50 per cent of the eligible electors in the municipality vote on the question; and

(b) more than 50 per cent of the votes on the question are in favour of those results. 2000, c. 5, s. 28.


So no they cannot make it non binding unless they can somehow get the Ontario Legislature to pass an amendment to the bill before the 17th.

Perhaps those in favour of such an plebiscite should know what they are asking for.
4/3/2014 3:36:45 PM
fastball says:
13 ELECTED councilors. Elected by the people to run the city as best as they see fit.
You make it seem like they sauntered into Chambers off the street and took it over. They were ELECTED. Bit of a difference there, SD.

If you want a vote...give me the question you'd pose. Why have you NEVER answered that?
4/3/2014 3:26:52 PM
S Duncan says:
elected under false pretenses claiming there would be a plebiscite and then turning around and saying NO.

this is not running the city, this is a capital project providing entertainment, a non essential project that goes far beyond the reaches of normal municipal government.

4/3/2014 5:46:36 PM
pearlman says:
/shakes head
4/2/2014 5:24:49 PM
Wolfie says:
I'm really curious to see the question.

This could end really badly...
4/2/2014 5:16:48 PM
musicferret says:
At best, this issue is massively divided. Thanks to Linda for doing what her constituents have asked.
4/2/2014 5:14:10 PM
progress now says:
They will debate it. They will defeat it. And that is that.

One more page to the story that doesn't contribute to the plot.
4/2/2014 5:08:59 PM
S Duncan says:
the good news is we will once again see how our councillors fly directly in the face of democracy.

we will know which ones we can vote out because so far they are all against democracy.

it would be cheaper to have the plebiscite on the election ballot than to have their stupid survey. It would also be much more difficult to skew the results if done on the election ballot than the survey.

and that's why they want the survey.

its past time for a plebiscite, despite what that cowardly mayor thinks.
4/2/2014 10:38:37 PM
debt collector says:
I find it troubling that a suspended with pay city employee has the time to sit on tbnewswatch for hours on end spouting off about city council.

I really hope your HR department steps in soon and relives you of your pay cheque. That would be one savings I would support.
4/2/2014 5:08:03 PM
S Duncan says:
what the heck are you talking about?
4/2/2014 9:37:58 PM
S Duncan says:
You would think that getting a simple vote on such a tremendous and obviously divided proposal shouldn't be so difficult.

but our council only pretends to like democracy in action, when it suits them.

A plebiscite is a great cost effective idea to let the people of this city decide what they want rather than have it dictated to them.

What kind of person fears a vote?

Councillors are starting to feel the heat and realizing that denying a plebiscite will be a serious issue for them come election time.
4/2/2014 4:48:18 PM
sky high says:
Not going to happen, Scott, Tim, or Waldo, or Toot Sweet or whatever name you decide when you get up every afternoon. You and your gang of 100 sleepy bears are not going to force us into welfare plebisciting. It costs a lot of money to put on a plebiscite, and we all know what the outcome would be anyway. So the sleepy bears and Rydholm have to pay for it if they want it. Then Thunder Bay will be legally bound to build this Events Centre MUHAHAHAHAH
4/2/2014 5:04:34 PM
fastball says:
Actually SkyHigh, to be fair here, it's been said repeatedly by administration that a plebiscite right now would cost next to nothing. It's only if we have a plebiscite when not tied into a municipal election that costs start to soar. If we're going to ask the cane shakers to be honest, us that are bent on pushing through this project need to mind our p's and q's and get our facts straight too! Just saying...
4/2/2014 5:32:44 PM
fastball says:
Please change your user-name. "Fastball" has been in use on this board for the past few years.
We wouldn't want to confuse the readers.
4/2/2014 6:47:43 PM
Leith Dunick says:
Fastball, change your password.
4/2/2014 8:40:52 PM
S Duncan says:
listening isn't his strong suit Leith. He just types, he never reads.
4/2/2014 9:35:25 PM
common cents says:
Leith you seem to be in favor of a downtown site could you please confirm you visited,


thanks common cents
4/2/2014 9:52:38 PM
sky high says:
Don't click on common cents url Leith! It's either a picture of a moose's jaw or a site that's show YOUR password
4/2/2014 10:24:15 PM
S Duncan says:
you're such a strong debate opponent skyless.

You are a real credit to the pro hockey rink crew!
4/2/2014 5:51:12 PM
sky high says:
At least I made an honest mistake and admit it. That's a lot different from knowingly spreading lies, right pops aka Duncan and dozens of other names you use to back up your lies :)
4/2/2014 6:46:46 PM
Eastender says:
Oh my , are we having another temper tantrum? Sky pilot , you wont get your lollipop that way.
4/2/2014 6:19:18 PM
pseudo says:
Actually, it costs a lot more money to build an Events Centre...without knowing who is paying what and just how much exactly the estimated price is our good Mayor ought to be held to his campaign promise of holding the plebiscite.
4/2/2014 9:29:43 PM
quintessential says:

Be careful what you wish for …
4/2/2014 6:25:07 PM
chezhank says:
5:45 PM

henry wojak
mayor in waiting
4/2/2014 4:41:17 PM
humnchuck says:
Are you allowed on the property yet, Henry?
4/2/2014 6:11:01 PM
Wolfie says:
Since the torch and pitchfork crowd is plugging their rally on here, I just wanted to add that, per the CBC article on this story, the following is planned:

"The Citizens for a Waterfront Event Centre will host an open house on Tuesday, April 15 at Rooster's Bistro on St. Paul Street."
4/2/2014 10:18:37 PM
S Duncan says:
that place holds what? 15 people??

LOL, nice big crowd huh?
4/2/2014 10:45:52 PM
S Duncan says:
are you that desperate for business down there?

4/2/2014 10:48:34 PM
SomeGuy says:
Why are you hating on Roosters now? It's a nice place...
4/3/2014 7:46:37 AM
lake superior guy says:
I find Henry's choice of picture to make his point rather telling. A small group of small minded individuals rioting violently in opposition of of an issue. I would expect more from one who is seriously considering a run at public office.
4/2/2014 6:43:17 PM
common cents says:
I suggest all EVERYONE visit this site on a downtown location!


The Negative Economic Impact of Parking

In a report titled "The Economic Impacts of Mile One Centre and the St. John's Convention Centre", the impact of the on-street model of parking in St. John's was reported after surveying area businesses. A similar outcome would be expected in any centre with similar facilities.

Local people attending hockey games, sporting events or concerts (especially those geared to a younger audience) tend to come directly to the event at start time and return home when the event ends ... the majority of attendees for such events do not visit downtown restaurants, pubs, etc.


The only issue mentioned with consistency was the lack of parking available in the downtown area and the impact this can have on downtown business. Small retailers in particular indicated that Mile One Centre patrons will take up parking spaces that are needed for their customers and this compromises their ability to secure a clientele. It is believed that the lack of parking effectively discourages customers from shopping downtown when events are taking place at Mile One Centre.

Although this report was made public to Moose Jaw's Council, and the negative economic impact of the on-street model was detailed for them, they chose to ignore it and proceed on their own assumptions and predictions that on-street parking would have a positive impact to businesses in the vicinity of the downtown Multiplex.
4/2/2014 9:27:40 PM
chezhank says:
Would be nice to see the original report,but the synopsis is similar to that in link that follows:
Ask people what they would rather do: have a new event centre or ongoing infrastructure renewal? I think you'll find that most people would go for ongoing infrastructure renewal.


4/3/2014 6:36:13 AM
Eastender says:
Good for you Linda. At least someone on this council has B.....lls.
4/2/2014 7:20:52 PM
yqt says:
Do you seriously think people care what your thoughts are? You wanna be our next mayor?

Should I remind you, that your character proceeds you!!!...............

"Presenter barred from speakng at council Monday"

"Henry Wojak, kicked out of city hall last Monday after using profanity and making an obscene gesture..........."

Stay out of politics, save yourself the embarrassment.
4/2/2014 11:13:15 PM
brightside says:
is that all you people have to do is complain about everything .... u probably rallied against the water front too im guessing....
4/4/2014 12:28:24 PM
Comments for this story are semi-moderated. Read our comment guideline.

Add a new comment.
You must log in to add comments.
Create a new account
Log In