It looks like we are about to have another round of claims and counter-claims about taxes. Two prime candidates for mayor are blasting each other on this very topic. Neither of them seem to have much to say other than to dump on the other.
Mr. O'Brien is reviving his "zero means zero" slogan from 2006 and Mr. Watson, who has pulled the number 2.5% out of the air, is criticizing O'Brien for his failure to deliver zero for the last four years.
Rather than having a serious discussion about the City's finances, the two gentlemen are engaged in political slogan swapping.
As I write this, I am reading the text of Mayor O'Brien's press release of September 11. Apparently all Council candidates are to be approached and asked for their comments on Mr. O'Brien's proposals. My understanding is that if I fail to sign on and swear fealty to this "plan", I will be cast into outer darkness and other candidates for Council will be blessed with the warmth of Mr. O'Brien's embrace.
Hidden behind the over-the-top rhetoric of both Watson and O'Brien, there may be some worthwhile ideas. I hope through many re-readings I will be able to find something of value.
Showing posts with label Mayor O'Brien. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mayor O'Brien. Show all posts
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Puzzled by Roger and friends
I would recommend reading the article in the Ottawa Citizen of today (Sunday May 30) entitled "The Lansdowne Four".
The prime spokesman for the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, Roger Greenberg, is quoted as saying "What I'm not used to is people taking facts and deliberately changing them to suit their purposes. I've never seen that before. But I guess that's part of the game. I'm just not used to playing that game."
I think Mr. Greenberg would do everyone a big favour by going further and listing the specific facts and how he considers that those facts have been distorted.
Another point that Mr. Greenberg could usefully elaborate is the fine distinction he is making in his statement "This is clearly not a sole-source contract. This was an unsolicited proposal."
First, I'm not sure that I understand the difference. Maybe Mr. Greenberg has a valid point; I just don't understand what that point is.
Second, I find the idea that it is an unsolicited proposal is hard to square with a passage earlier in the same article, a passage worth quoting:
The way Greenberg tells it, OSEG learned that its modest plan to lease Frank Clair Stadium from the city was a non-starter after meeting with Mayor Larry O'Brien and city manager Kent Kirkpatrick in the fall of 2007.
"Their comeback to us was, 'Guys, listen. We're not going to spend upwards of $100 million in taxpayers' money to fix up the stadium so you can play 10 games of football a year'" Greenberg recounts.
If the businessmen wanted to propose something more comprehensive, O'Brien and Kirkpatrick told them, the city would listen.
This raises two questions --
(a) Does the discussion with the Mayor and the City Manager constitute solicitation of an offer? If it does, I guess the "unsolicited proposal" description does not apply.
(b) Is the timing (autumn of 2007) correct? It is worth remembering that Council's approval of a design-to-build competition for Lansdowne was in late November of 2007. The announcement of the CFL conditional franchise was in March 2008. The suspension of the design-to-build competition was May/June 2008. The Lansdowne Live proposal indicating OSEG was moving beyond a simple stadium rental was revealed on October 17. 2008. If the timing in the Citizen article is correct, the most senior elected official of the city plus the most senior member of city staff had been in discussions with OSEG for a year prior to the public statement of the intention by OSEG to submit an "unsolicited proposal".
I share with Mr. Greenberg the desire to have the facts stated clearly. Those facts can be interpreted differently, but we continue to need facts.
The prime spokesman for the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, Roger Greenberg, is quoted as saying "What I'm not used to is people taking facts and deliberately changing them to suit their purposes. I've never seen that before. But I guess that's part of the game. I'm just not used to playing that game."
I think Mr. Greenberg would do everyone a big favour by going further and listing the specific facts and how he considers that those facts have been distorted.
Another point that Mr. Greenberg could usefully elaborate is the fine distinction he is making in his statement "This is clearly not a sole-source contract. This was an unsolicited proposal."
First, I'm not sure that I understand the difference. Maybe Mr. Greenberg has a valid point; I just don't understand what that point is.
Second, I find the idea that it is an unsolicited proposal is hard to square with a passage earlier in the same article, a passage worth quoting:
The way Greenberg tells it, OSEG learned that its modest plan to lease Frank Clair Stadium from the city was a non-starter after meeting with Mayor Larry O'Brien and city manager Kent Kirkpatrick in the fall of 2007.
"Their comeback to us was, 'Guys, listen. We're not going to spend upwards of $100 million in taxpayers' money to fix up the stadium so you can play 10 games of football a year'" Greenberg recounts.
If the businessmen wanted to propose something more comprehensive, O'Brien and Kirkpatrick told them, the city would listen.
This raises two questions --
(a) Does the discussion with the Mayor and the City Manager constitute solicitation of an offer? If it does, I guess the "unsolicited proposal" description does not apply.
(b) Is the timing (autumn of 2007) correct? It is worth remembering that Council's approval of a design-to-build competition for Lansdowne was in late November of 2007. The announcement of the CFL conditional franchise was in March 2008. The suspension of the design-to-build competition was May/June 2008. The Lansdowne Live proposal indicating OSEG was moving beyond a simple stadium rental was revealed on October 17. 2008. If the timing in the Citizen article is correct, the most senior elected official of the city plus the most senior member of city staff had been in discussions with OSEG for a year prior to the public statement of the intention by OSEG to submit an "unsolicited proposal".
I share with Mr. Greenberg the desire to have the facts stated clearly. Those facts can be interpreted differently, but we continue to need facts.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Was there a wow?
Yesterday (May 27) there was a presentation by architects about the lovely buildings that could be built at Lansdowne Park. Mayor O'Brien said he had told the architectural team that he wanted people to shout out "WOW!" on seeing the ideas presented.
Actually no one stood up and shouted wow. Some of us thought that if we were about to be given a big gift by the city we also would take the time to draw some pretty pictures.
No one mentioned at the event that it is proposed the city's taxpayers pay 100% of the cost of the sinuous stadium. No one noted that the city is to kick in millions to provide parking for the shoppers in the stores at Lansdowne.
As usual, no one asked the obvious questions. Here is a little question for everyone to puzzle over. The public is invited to comment on the lovely pictures between June 1 and June 13. But on June 9, the staff report (plus all the other outstanding reports???) is to be tabled for consideration leading to the eventual Council discussion. So the question is -- why would anyone submit a comment between June 9 and June 13 since the comment will obviously be disregarded? In fact, why comment at all, since the conclusion of the staff report has already been written and staff are now hard at work searching their thesaurus for words of praise to apply to the so-called Lansdowne Partnership Plan. [Maybe "divinely inspired" would be too much but "approaching heaven on earth" might strike the right tone.]
If someone gave me land to build a house, chances are I could build a nicer house than if I had to pay for the land. Isn't that all the pretty pictures show?
Incidentally, from talking to architects, I gather the technical term for what was displayed yesterday is "eye candy".
Actually no one stood up and shouted wow. Some of us thought that if we were about to be given a big gift by the city we also would take the time to draw some pretty pictures.
No one mentioned at the event that it is proposed the city's taxpayers pay 100% of the cost of the sinuous stadium. No one noted that the city is to kick in millions to provide parking for the shoppers in the stores at Lansdowne.
As usual, no one asked the obvious questions. Here is a little question for everyone to puzzle over. The public is invited to comment on the lovely pictures between June 1 and June 13. But on June 9, the staff report (plus all the other outstanding reports???) is to be tabled for consideration leading to the eventual Council discussion. So the question is -- why would anyone submit a comment between June 9 and June 13 since the comment will obviously be disregarded? In fact, why comment at all, since the conclusion of the staff report has already been written and staff are now hard at work searching their thesaurus for words of praise to apply to the so-called Lansdowne Partnership Plan. [Maybe "divinely inspired" would be too much but "approaching heaven on earth" might strike the right tone.]
If someone gave me land to build a house, chances are I could build a nicer house than if I had to pay for the land. Isn't that all the pretty pictures show?
Incidentally, from talking to architects, I gather the technical term for what was displayed yesterday is "eye candy".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)