To the editor:
Greg Alexander’s recent column speaks to one of two community narratives respecting Prince Arthur’s Landing.
Mr. Alexander’s version points to a vision of a new town square -- its success heralded by completion of its taxpayer-funded share, celebrated by a land transfer with promises of more to come. It speaks of due diligence, and private investors who will drive development from here.
The second narrative is related but, as is often the case with relatives, doesn’t live in the same neighbourhood. It speaks of a project and vision benefiting self-interested designers, contractors and developers more than taxpayers. It speaks of ongoing construction costs unrevealed until after a municipal election, and budget miscalculations attributed to the city manager’s self-described “optimistic” accounting principles.
It is a narrative of imminent disclosure of a hotelier year over year, now discredited by explanations that only now such deliberations can be realistically undertaken.
It speaks of overspending so exhausting of community revenue that additional taxes are levied to repair city roads. At $11,500, administration commissioned a pollster to sustain council’s courage that citizens will smile on dedicated infrastructure surtax.
With that we still face closure of golf courses and the conservatory, with promises of more austerity to come. In this version of the narrative, Prince Arthurs’s Landing -- originally intended to revitalize the north core, cannot even support itself without further tax commitment and an adjacent event centre to entice a hotelier.
When consultants reported a requirement for a parking structure to support the downtown location, long considered the death knell for downtown advocates, the city manager committed to follow up. We don’t say anymore about it. Mr. Alexander’s narrative is convenient but anemic. It appears rooted in wishful thinking and a penchant for tailoring the message. It is not compelling.
William Olesky,
Thunder Bay
