Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[JFFournier]

Dang, who would oppose a water park at Lansdowne?

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=saQ...ses%20lansdowne%20park&pg=2192%2C4384768

[ThaLoveDocta]

Originally Posted by JFFournier

Dang, who would oppose a water park at Lansdowne?

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=saQ...ses%20lansdowne%20park&pg=2192%2C4384768

Article 1: Glebe/Landsdowne Park Proposal Opposed
Article 2: Regular class cant help retarded pupils.


hmm......

[waterloowarrior]

I actually agree, I think the residential development should have been for public housing, a mix of market and geared to income rental housing. The Glebe has a low vacancy rate and the City should be leading by example in its own developments.

[concernedottawa]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

I actually agree, I think the residential development should have been for public housing, a mix of market and geared to income rental housing. The Glebe has a low vacancy rate and the City should be leading by example in its own developments.

Ironically the city ( read all taxpayers ) are to pay the developers penalty of $2.8M for no public housing should the Supreme Court not intervene. It is itemized in the cost layout top of second page on post 2183 found by clicking here

The link to the payment on the city website is found by clicking here.

[KHOOLE]

Bartlebooth: I am not sure if I understand your logic and your argument when you wrote:

""Does spending $198 million and giving up a percentage of public land for a new urban park, renovated horticulture building, new farmers market facilities and football/soccer stadium make sense?" you might get different answers."

The City of Ottawa is leasing 10 acres of publicly-owned land to a private enterprise disguised as a public-private partnership at $1 a year for 30 to 50 years.

It is spending $35 million for a municipal park that it should have fixed up a long time ago when the Rough Riders and then the Renegades left town and a parking lot was no longer required.

It is spending around $10 million to move a building that is no longer a heritage building to accommodate a movie theatre building

It is borrowing something like $198 million to fix up its own arena and stadium (which will possibly eventually cost taxpayers $400 million at current interest over 30 years) and then immediately lease it to private enterprise (aka as a P3) at $1 a year

It is getting involved into a so-called public-private partnership where the private business associates are guaranteed to get all of their investments back before the City even starts gleaning any leftovers in 30 years when the stadium will possibly have to be torn down anyway.

It is investing into a questionable one-level-only-because-of-Rideau-Canal-water-table underground parking garage for commercial and residential buildings of problematic and doubtful success?

It is dependant on a politically controlled federal agency dedicated to the beautification of the National Capital to allow daily and constant use of federal roads for access to a shopping mall and professional sports facility.

The Reichmans really blew it with the Canary Wharfs.
The Greenbergs may possibly blow it with its Minto@Lansdowne enterprise.

I’m not putting any bets on them.

[bartlebooth]

I am not sure if I understand your logic

That's probably because there isn't any, haha.

In all honesty, I wrote that without fully understanding the deal and it was a bad example. I was going off what I was reading in the previous posts when I wrote it (which was lazy). The poster 'concernedOttawa' seems to attract a lot of negative attention here and all I was trying to say is that if they framed their comments differently (with less emotion, maybe some recognition of what might be gained through the redevelopment plan as it stands even if there is not a lot in their opinion), more people might be willing to engage in conversation and not be immediately turned off or on the offensive. I'm not saying the city's plan is good and the LPC plan is bad, I just don't see the point in coming into a forum where people generally seem enthused about something and trying to start a fight. It only makes them dislike you more and cheer for you to fail out of spite.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

I actually agree, I think the residential development should have been for public housing, a mix of market and geared to income rental housing. The Glebe has a low vacancy rate and the City should be leading by example in its own developments.

Public housing at Lansdowne. I'm sure the Glebites would love that!

[KHOOLE]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

That's probably because there isn't any, haha.

In all honesty, I wrote that without fully understanding the deal and it was a bad example. I was going off what I was reading in the previous posts when I wrote it (which was lazy). The poster 'concernedOttawa' seems to attract a lot of negative attention here and all I was trying to say is that if they framed their comments differently (with less emotion, maybe some recognition of what might be gained through the redevelopment plan as it stands even if there is not a lot in their opinion), more people might be willing to engage in conversation and not be immediately turned off or on the offensive. I'm not saying the city's plan is good and the LPC plan is bad, I just don't see the point in coming into a forum where people generally seem enthused about something and trying to start a fight. It only makes them dislike you more and cheer for you to fail out of spite.

Roger 10-4

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

That's probably because there isn't any, haha.

In all honesty, I wrote that without fully understanding the deal and it was a bad example. I was going off what I was reading in the previous posts when I wrote it (which was lazy). The poster 'concernedOttawa' seems to attract a lot of negative attention here and all I was trying to say is that if they framed their comments differently (with less emotion, maybe some recognition of what might be gained through the redevelopment plan as it stands even if there is not a lot in their opinion), more people might be willing to engage in conversation and not be immediately turned off or on the offensive. I'm not saying the city's plan is good and the LPC plan is bad, I just don't see the point in coming into a forum where people generally seem enthused about something and trying to start a fight. It only makes them dislike you more and cheer for you to fail out of spite.

And you're right on all counts.

That's why I am always a little suspicious of "Everyone I talk to loves/hates the proposal!" comments. Sure they do. As you presented it.

This is the part that John Martin struggles with. Let's assume his concerns are genuine. He considers the "loss" of public space to be a far bigger deal than I do. In his case, it's to a point that he struggles to conceive that someone would NOT consider it a travesty. That's why he keeps beating us over the head on that point.

Thing is, those of us in favour do understand it and do accept it, so being told the same thing repeatedly gets irritating. And no amount of "we get it, John" is sufficient to get that point across. Furthermore, our approval would really mean nothing in the grand scheme of things anymore, so the incessant spamming is particularly pointless now.

[lrt's friend]

The concern about the loss of public space is only valid if people are actually using the public space. Who really uses the longstanding parking lot at Lansdowne Park for anything more than a parking lot? If putting some of the land to private use actually makes it a more attractive public space for more people, have we not all gained?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The concern about the loss of public space is only valid if people are actually using the public space. Who really uses the longstanding parking lot at Lansdowne Park for anything more than a parking lot? If putting some of the land to private use actually makes it a more attractive public space for more people, have we not all gained?

I do get the argument that public land will be more valuable in the future, and that we need to preserve it now for future needs. The problem is that the land has been horribly under-used for 30-years now, and I would have absolutely zero confidence that it wouldn't sit unused for another 10 years if we don't act. We are talking about a generation or two of residents who never benefit from the land.

In my view, the current plan strikes a good balance. Yes, we give up some public land, but very significant portions of the site are opened up and will remain in public hands as the urban park. In addition, the commercial portion of the site that will be leased out contains a number of public spaces that have the potential to be very vibrant - again, delivering a public benefit and an improvement over the status quo.

By contrast, the other plan being flogged relentlessly brags that it would build 1200 above-ground parking spots, plus access roads for those spots. To dedicate that much public land to parking is a bigger travesty in my view, as it that greatly reduces any public benefit that might be gained by keeping the entire park in public hands.

[concernedottawa]

If the developer proposal had won an open competition there would not have been
room for legal argument.

Having to rely on sole source masks over the inherent weakness of the plan
for the taxpayer.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by concernedottawa

If the developer proposal had won an open competition there would not have been
room for legal argument.

Having to rely on sole source masks over the inherent weakness of the plan
for the taxpayer.

Nothing was "masked over". The details of the plan have been public from very early in the process. Yes, the deal was sole-sourced, but it was then subjected to a level of public scrutiny that exceeds just about any project ever undertaken by the City. And it evolved considerably as a result.

To suggest that an open competition guarantees that a plan has no financial weakness is wishful thinking. I'm not sure it is even fair to say that it improves the odds of financial success of a project. There is a long and distinguished list of competitively-sourced failures that would surey rival any similar list for sole-sourced projects.

Particularly where there are no viable alternatives (i.e. none with similar financial backing and expertise as was the case here), competition is of very little value. The only other "proposal" that emerged lacked those critical financial prerequisites and would not have even made it past the screening processs of a competitive procurement.

In fact, the competitive process often ties the hands of government when trying to negotiate the best possible deal with the successful proponent. The proposed concert hall is a recent example of that. That's why every public procurement policy allows for sole-sourcing, limited tenders and other exceptions to open competition. There are situations where open competition is not in the interest of taxpayers and procurement policies are nuanced enough to recognize that.

In this case, at least three courts have pretty definitively rejected the arguments you are making, so I don't think playing the legal card supports your argument.

[concernedottawa]

Hiding behind a sole source demonstrates inherent weakness.

It is a flawed plan ( financially, socially and logistically as ably demonstrated by a number of users )
and only implementable with a sole source.

Open bids expose weakness, force plans to be better thought out, and
in turn are of long term benefit to the taxpayer.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by concernedottawa

Hiding behind a sole source demonstrates inherent weakness.

It is a flawed plan ( financially, socially and logistically as ably demonstrated by a number of users )
and only implementable with a sole source.

An open bid will expose the weakness and in turn be of long term benefit to the taxpayer.

That it was sole-sourced underscores a specific strength that no other proposal could have (yours included, such as it is).

[m0nkyman]

Originally Posted by concernedottawa

Hiding behind a sole source demonstrates inherent weakness.

It's not hiding.

Originally Posted by concernedottawa

It is a flawed plan ( financially, socially and logistically as ably demonstrated by a number of users )
and only implementable with a sole source.

Every plan is flawed. It's an imperfect world. I think your plan has more flaws. It's not that we don't see the flaws in this plan, most of us just accept that it's better than any of the alternatives that were possible.

Originally Posted by concernedottawa

Open bids expose weakness, force plans to be better thought out, and
in turn are of long term benefit to the taxpayer.

If you don't think the examination of this plan exposed weaknesses and forced the plan to be better thought out, you weren't paying attention.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by concernedottawa

Hiding behind a sole source demonstrates inherent weakness.

It is a flawed plan ( financially, socially and logistically as ably demonstrated by a number of users )
and only implementable with a sole source.

Open bids expose weakness, force plans to be better thought out, and
in turn are of long term benefit to the taxpayer.

More generalities. Generalities are not evidence of anything, other than an ability to make sweeping statements about complex issues.

How exactly do open bids expose weaknesses in a way that the public scrutiny of Lansdowne did not?

How was the forced competition in the case of the concert hall to the benefit of taxpayers? All it did was cost money, and ensure that Ottawa didn't get a concert hall.

[Bob Dobalina]

Originally Posted by concernedottawa

Hiding behind a sole source demonstrates inherent weakness.

It is a flawed plan ( financially, socially and logistically as ably demonstrated by a number of users )
and only implementable with a sole source.

Open bids expose weakness, force plans to be better thought out, and
in turn are of long term benefit to the taxpayer.

Then why did you pen a letter to city's chief procurement officer telling them that the way to end all litigation over the Lansdowne process was to chose your own sole source bid.

This is what you're reduced to? pleading your case on internet message boards and Ottawa Citizen comments sections (at least until the paywall kicked in)?

My question to you, John: was all the legal cost worth it? The Friends of Lansdowne as their own corporation owe $600,000 in legal bills, of which $300,000 are currently outstanding. You owe the city currently $11,000 in legal fees on top of your own for whatever the cost of that group of lawyers you retained (not sure if they are still in the equasion though from what I can see, they are not). That number will no doubt rise as you push forward with the Supreme Court, which will look at the many rulings regarding Lansdowne and dismiss your case.

At the end of the day, irrespective of how Lansdowne looks come 2015, was all of this worth it to you?

[AuxTown]

It is a flawed plan ( financially, socially and logistically as ably demonstrated by a number of users )
and only implementable with a sole source.

I'm not sure where you get that idea. Are you suggesting that this plan is not popular with the public or council? The fact that every single Lansdowne vote in council is a landslide in favour of the project going ahead suggests this "sole sourced" project would likely win any open competition you can come up with. As mentioned above, it has been subject to such a detailed scrutiny and many changes at the city's request, that it would be virtually impossible for another proposal to meet all the criteria that this one already does.

On another note, can't wait to see this one rise! How many cranes do you think we will see for the Southside stands?

[concernedottawa]

Open procurement is based on best value for the taxpayer.

The current sole source has a net loss of over $324M, privatizes
a public site, promotes large chains over local business, has no
transport plan, decreases public parking from the current 2,400
spots to 660 spots and adds over 850,000 sq ft of density to a
landlocked pocket and removes a popular soccer facility.

For certain narrow reasons some see that as good value.

An open bid would however work for the benefit of the site
and the public not narrow private interests.

This is a moral question, do you allow open competition?

Particularly on an historic public site.

And a legal one.

Taken from the City of Ottawa website ( www.ottawa.ca see Procurement By-Law 50 )

SHORT TITLE

1. This By-law may be cited as the "Purchasing By-law".
PURPOSE

2. (1) The objective of this By-law respecting procurement is to obtain best value when purchasing goods, construction and services for the City while treating all suppliers equitably.
(2) The guiding procurement principle is that purchases be made using a competitive process that is open, transparent and fair to all suppliers.
(3) These objectives and principles are reflected in this By-law.