Downtown vision vs. black thoughts

BLOG #531: It’s easy to criticize a vision and it hasn’t taken long for the negative comments to begin stomping on the latest dream for downtown London. Let’s reverse the process and take a critical look at some of the black thoughts instead.

Thursday, Oct. 6, 2011 – London

As Councillor Paul Hubert very accurately observed this week, putting your vision into play takes courage. Imagine if Chris Columbus had listened to all the negative comments: “You’ll fall off the edge.” “You’ll run out of money.” “How will you get back?” “They don’t play football over there, only lacrosse.” Or the killer – “They smoke!”

Well, he didn’t and the rest is (considerably inaccurate) history.

So let’s get some of the really black thoughts being expressed about the vision for downtown London now waiting on the sidelines for the kickoff.

We can’t afford it.

At the moment we don’t know that because we don’t know exactly what the city might build or be on the hook for. But one guess was submitted to city council this week by Martin Hayward, the city’s chief financial officer. He estimates capital costs of $221.5 and annual operating costs of $3.9 million.

Of the total, $41 million is already planned and therefore in capital budgets. So based on Mr. Hayward’s estimates we need to find $180.5 million.

Here’s his list: New city hall, $100 million plus $10 million planned; downtown presence for Western, $30 million; Fanshawe College downtown campus, $20 million planned; performing arts centre, $30 million; bus route changes recommended by downtown master plan (not yet public), $500,000; increased incentive programs to encourage residential development, $11 million.

The actual cash money, though, might be considerably less. The donation to Western could come in the shape of the current City Hall and / or Centennial Hall and adjacent apartment building. The performing arts centre donation could come in the form of land. The residential incentive programs represent money not collected rather than money paid out.

The actual cash, therefore, could be as little as $100.5 million. Tuesday night council gave tentative approval for a one per cent economic levy on property tax – roughly $20-$30 per household – to raise $69 million over five years for the downtown project. We’d have to borrow the remaining $31 million.

If all of this economy levy was poured into downtown projects we’d have all the money we need. So the downtown vision on this basis is very do-able.

But here’s the catch. City council has four visions with a total price tag of almost $800 million, of which all but $96.1 million is unfunded. Borrowing that much would put us way over our allowed debt limit, Mr. Hayward reported.

The current proposed pot of $100 million in five years spread over four visions could be a real stretch. Raising the whole $700 in a special levy on taxes would represent $200-plus per household per year.

Do-able perhaps, but definitely Columbus country.

This is a job for the private sector, not taxpayers.

Certainly most of it is and city council is counting on that. Jeff Fielding, newly retitled city manager, says the conventional rule of thumb is each dollar the city ‘invests’ should leverage $4 from other governments and the private sector. If that’s correct, for our $100 million a pool of at least $400 million should be available, some or all of which could finance apartments, office towers, retail space and entertainment features downtown.

And nothing draws business money like buzz. If London’s newest downtown vision got started we’d have buzz-iest downtown in the country. Honest, it would be like Vancouver circa 2000.

Very do-able. As Mayor Joe Fontana said Tuesday night: “You can’t build a city unless you are prepared to invest some money and then leverage other sources. But you better be able to put your own money up first before you ask someone else.”

Western should be paying its fair share.

Let’s look at that. Suppose for argument’s sake the city does give Western the current city hall and adjacent lands and buildings – a very, very generous donation indeed. It will still cost the university a minimum of $23 million (the city’s current estimate) to remove the asbestos and renovate 300 Dufferin Ave. It will cost millions and millions more to turn Centennial Hall into the facility Western proposes and Centennial House into a proper university residence. That seems a pretty fair share.

At the end we’d have a legitimate Education Centre which would generate its own dynamic. Already the public school board has expressed an interest in creating some form of international school nearby in conjunction with Central Secondary School located next door to City Hall.

We don’t need a new city hall.

Agreed. But many people want one, arguing it’s one sure way to create downtown redevelopment energy. It is true, however, that staying at and renovating 300 Dufferin Ave. would cost 30 to 50 per cent LESS in capital and operating costs over the next 20 years than any other option still on the table or considered, including the option of a smaller city hall.

Staying where we are, of course, would probably mean giving up the Education Centre concept for the downtown, not to mention that really cool beach and lake in front of the visionary City Hall on the current site of the Middlesex-London Health Unit.

There’s too much downtown residential in the vision.

Oh really? Most urban planners would say there’s hardly any such thing as too much high density downtown residential.

Residences bring people. People spend money to buy things and services. Things and services are provided by businesses which like to be located nearby. Ergo, more people, more business – not to mention less crime and mayhem.

There are others parts of the city that need help.

That’s Councillor Sandy White’s newest mantra, stated over and over and over this week. And so they do. However, as Mr. Hayward made very clear in his response to her question, the city has many continuing programs costing many millions of dollars that target neighbourhoods, including, and at times especially, those in Ward 14.

However, with all due respect to Ms. White and her keenness to help her constituents, the Pond Mills and Commissioners skyline will never be an icon for the City of London

A better question she might ask is whether a healthy downtown benefits everyone. Absolutely if it is creating jobs and generating strong tax revenues – revenues that should be significantly higher per square meter than elsewhere in the urban area. Vibrant cities tend to have vibrant downtowns. Vibrant cities also tend to look after their neighbourhoods.

But it’s still a good question to ask – and certainly one the mayor and council might find worthy of a detailed answer if they hope to build support for its downtown vision. Show us the business case for downtown investment.