To the editor:
The local daily newspaper the Chronicle Journal posted an editorial on April 9 that needs rebuttal.
On Nov.26, 2012 there was a deputation asking that the Phase 2 feasibility study on a proposed event centre to be presented at city council that night, not be accepted. The reason being that a key element, or one of items in the terms of reference for that report was not addressed making the report incomplete. That key element was the assessment of the Fort William Gardens (FWG). Regardless, council voted to accept the study without being informed. We heard rhetoric from councillor Boshcoff that the FWG is 10 years past it’s shelf life, is it?
The FWG is under the City’s Asset Management Plan and was fully assessed Sept.2013 by KGS (Consulting Engineers) who also had assessed it in 2007.The results: “The next review of the structure should occur within 5 years. Recommended repairs at this time have a recommended budget of $102,000.”
The editor claims every “legitimate expression of the ‘public will’ to date has been in favor of continuing to determine if this project is viable” really. What legitimate expression would that be? The 2013 Ipsos Reid Citizen’s Satisfaction Survey showed that the public ranked the proposed event centre 9th out of 10 for major capital projects the city should pursue.
How many members of the public know that the city has 34 years left of a 99 year lease with the Fort William Gardens Curling Club. Is this why they are talking about repurposing the FWG, so as to accommodate the lease agreement? The city certainly does not need another lawsuit against it.
It is asinine for the editor to fan the flames of north south rivalry into this discussion. It is also sensationalistic journalism to claim that the Concerned Taxpayers group was ‘haranguing those who dared to speak at their meeting’ without mentioning that even though passions overcame some, those in attendance applauded those who did speak .The Concerned Taxpayers hosted the open house, those in attendance were guests and some may have been overcome with passion.
The Concerned Taxpayers of Thunder Bay wanted the people to decide in a plebiscite, which could have taken place with a question on the ballot in the Oct 27 municipal election. Council has chosen to keep the north south rivalry alive by not allowing it.
To remedy the wrong, I suggest a binding vote with a referendum to engage the public and see if they really want to pursue this project.
Henry Wojak,
Thunder Bay
